Cr.Misc. M 16176 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 16176 of 2010 Date of decision:26.7.2010 Mewa Singh Petitioner vs. State of Haryana and anr. Respondent Present: Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner has been facing trial pursuant to an FIR, which was registered after it was referred u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police, for the last about 8 years. The FIR was registered at the instance of complainant Sanjiv Kumar alleging that one Pohlu Ram, who had executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 8.5.2001 regarding 3 kanal 11 marlas of land had already entered into an agreement of sale with him, prior to the said sale deed, i.e on 18.1.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Sanjiv Kumar had already filed a suit for possession by specific performance, which was decreed ex-parte against Pholu Ram and the petitioner. The petitioner has sought the setting aside of the ex-parte decree. It is contended that the petitioner, after having purchased the property from Pholu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 8.5.2010, has been in possession of the same but the complainant by abusing the process of the court has been able to prolong the criminal prosecution against the petitioner with mala fide intention to pressurize the petitioner to part with the property though the petitioner is a registered owner. Pholu Ram, the Cr.Misc. M 16176 of 2010 2 seller of the property, has been declared a proclaimed offender. It has further been contended that the agreement of sale does not confer any title on the complainant. The petitioner, though having a better possessory title than the complainant, is being unnecessarily harassed. Only two Pws have been examined. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has prima facie a good case in his favour but since the charges have already been framed, it will not be appropriate, at this stage, to interfere and quash the proceedings, especially when the charges have not been challenged by the petitioner. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to complete the trial within a period of six months after receipt of a certified copy of this order or from the next date of hearing, fixed before the trial court, which ever is later. July 26 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE