Crl. Misc. No.M-14891 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-14891 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 8, 2010 Tarsem Lal …..Petitioner Vs. Nanu Mal Trust and others State of Punjab …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner is a complainant in a private complaint against 16 accused. The case is pending at the stage of pre-charge evidence. Counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of one named accused being an Advocate of Kharar, there is a reasonable apprehension of matter not being decided expeditiously. It is claimed that the petitioner apprehends that the advocate-accused may interfere in the expeditiously disposal of the matter. Crl. Misc. No.M-14891 of 2010 [2] After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I find that vide annexure P-14, an order dated May 17, 2010 has been passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kharar, that the High Court has already issued direction in the present case to conclude the trial within six months. Such a direction having already been issued, it will not be prudent to entertain this petition for transfer because there are 15 other accused persons also. Issuance of notice to all the respondents giving them opportunity to file reply and then determine whether good grounds are made out for transfer will consume a lot of time. The said time will be utilized by the trial Court for conclusion of the proceedings as the direction has already been issued for expeditious disposal. In view of the above circumstances, no ground is made out for transfer of the case at this stage. Dismissed. July 8, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE