IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.23251-M of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 30, 2008 RANJIT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for issuance of directions to the respondents to expedite the trial of FIR No.159 dated 11.7.1999 under Sections 364, 120-B, 34, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Chhainsa. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has informed the court that after investigation, earlier a cancellation report was prepared. Subsequently, further investigation was conducted and some additional material came on record. The accused police officials belong to Uttar Pradesh. The accused were arrested and challan under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared and put in court against Om Parkash, Jhaman, Shis Pal, Dinesh, Sunder and Sattan alias Satpal on 22.4.2005. An application was made for issuance of warrants of arrest against SI Baljeet Criminal Misc.23251-M of 2008 2 and other police officials of Police Station, Kaker, District Autembudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. Some of the persons were declared proclaimed offenders. Some of the accused applied for anticipatory bail before this Court. The said persons were joined in investigation and have been released on bail. Supplementary challans were submitted on 28.10.2007, 25.11.2007 and 17.3.2008 Two of the accused are still absconding and have been declared proclaimed offenders. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-State that all out efforts have been made and the case has made substantial progress. Now that the challan has been presented, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there has been considerable delay. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The offence was committed in the year 1999. There is no dispute that substantial delay has been caused. Under the circumstances, the trial Court is requested to conclude the trial within 8 months of framing of charges. The prosecuting agency shall take note of the order and ensure that no delay is caused. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of. September 30, 2008 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE