IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 6080 of 2009 Date of decision: March 4, 2009 Raj Pal ….. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….. Respondents Present: Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for directing the learned trial Court to expedite the trial in the case titled State v. Shiv Kumar and others. The petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Barnala. It was alleged that Shiv Kumar (respondent No.2) was owner of certain land as detailed in the complaint. Out of the said land, Shiv Kumar executed sale deed dated 19.4.1996 of land measuring 9 kanals 4 marlas in favour of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.1,15,000/-. On the basis of said sale deed, mutation was also sanctioned on 15.6.1996 by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade. After the sale had been made by Shiv Kumar, his wife Smt. Saroj set up a claim that the land had in fact been transferred in her favour by way of a decree of Civil Court dated 1.2.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.1643 of 1994 titled Saroj v. Shiv Kumar. In the complaint it has been alleged that in fact Smt. Saroj was present at the time when the sale consideration was paid. Besides, the sale deed was scribed on 18.4.1996 and registered on 19.4.1996. On the basis of these allegations, FIR No.317 dated 3.10.2002 was registered at Police Station Gharaunda, Distt. Karnal for the offences Crl. Misc. No. M- 6080 of 2009 [2] under Sections 420/120-B IPC. Respondents No.2 and 3 were chargesheeted on 18.5.2004 (Annexure P1). It is submitted that despite more than four and a half years having lapsed, the trial in the case is not proceeding and therefore, directions are liable to be issued to direct the trial Court to expedite the trial. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that there is no material before this Court to show that as to why there has been delay in the trial of the case. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to issue directions to the trial Court to expedite the trial. In fact it would be just and expedient that such a request is made by the petitioner before the trial Court itself. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is disposed of with the direction that for the relief prayed in the present petition, the petitioner approaches the learned trial Court itself and in case such a prayer is made, the learned trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law. (S.S. SARON) March 4, 2009 JUDGE amit