IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No.34294 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 08, 2011 Rajbir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: None for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The grievance of the petitioner is that the charge was framed on 10.12.2009 but witnesses are not being examined. The trial Court was asked to furnish the report and reasons in this regard and it now transpires that primarily it is because of the accused remaining absent from the trial that the witnesses have not been recorded. Three P.Ws. were present, but these could not be recorded on 4.11.2010 as accused Ajay Kumar was absent. The case had to be adjourned for procuring his presence through non- bailable warrants. On 20.1.2011 accused Ajay Kumar surrendered before the court and was allowed bail. Then another accused absented himself and the case had to be adjourned to 27.4.2011 for procuring his presence. Warrants of his arrest have also been issued, which could not be executed. The case has remained adjourned only because of the accused having remained absent. From the facts as noticed above, the present petitioner, who is also one of the accused, cannot really make a grievance for Criminal Misc.-M No.34294 of 2011 (O&M) : 2 : delay in disposal of the case. It is the accused, who are responsible for said delay. The trial Court is directed to ensure that appropriate action is taken against the accused persons, who are causing hindrance in the progress of the trial. No case for expediting the trial, therefore, is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. December 08, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE