Criminal Misc. No. 46428-M of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. 46428-M of 2007 Date of Decision: 30.9.2010 Ram Lal …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Surender Garg, Advocate for respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner on 21.9.2010 when the following order was passed:- “...In the present petition, a prayer has been made that FIR No.66 dated 04.11.2006 registered at Police Station City, Sangrur District Sangrur under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC be quashed. On 8th December, 2009, the interim relief granted on 15th October, 2007 was withdrawn. Criminal Misc. No. 46428-M of 2007 2 Thereafter, on 17th December, 2009, the petitioner was directed to appear before the trial Court on 23rd December, 2009 and it was ordered that in case the petitioner appears before the trial Court, he shall be released to the satisfaction of the trial Court. In view of this, Registry is directed to obtain a status report from the trial Court telephonically or through FAX. List on 29th September, 2010.” Today also, nobody is present on his behalf. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, vide his letter dated 27.9.2010, has stated that on 23.12.2009, the petitioner had appeared and furnished his bail bonds, which were accepted and attested. It was stated in the order dated 21.9.2010 that the interim relief granted to the petitioner, by this Court, on 15.10.2007, was withdrawn on 8.12.2009. No explanation has come forward as to why the trial Court had not proceeded against the accused. Be that as it may, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of nine months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This direction is issued because nobody has caused appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 21.9.2010 and today as well. Thus, it can be safely inferred that after filing of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., follow up action is to be initiated by the trial Court. Criminal Misc. No. 46428-M of 2007 3 With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 30, 2010 “DK”