Ram Pal Alias Sonu v. State Of Punjab

2024:PHHC:038734

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH SR. No.112 CRM-M-13185-2024 Date of decision:14.03.2024 Ram Pal @ Sonu

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. SHEKHAWAT

Present:

Mr. Mohit Jaggi, Advocate for the petitioner. N.S. SHEKHAWAT, J.

1.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to issue appropriate directions to the trial Court to expedite trial of case bearing No.CHI-278-2020 titled as 'State Vs. Jaswinder Singh @ Chota arising out of FIR No.0014 dated 28.01.2019 registered under Sections 323/506/341/427/148/149 IPC at Police Station Tripri, District Patiala.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR in the present case was registered on 29.01.2019 and the challan was presented before the Court of Area Magistrate on 25.06.2020. He further submits that after filing of the challan by the police, the matter was delayed for more than two years and charge was framed against the accused on 09.11.2022, which is clear from the order (Annexure P-3). On 09.11.2022, the case was adjourned to 25.01.2023 for recording of the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel has placed reliance on various interim orders passed by the trial Court and submits that the case has been adjourned repeatedly for recording of the prosecution evidenc, but no prosecution evidence has been recorded AMIT RANA 2024.03.18 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh



  so far. He, thus, contends that even after a lapse of period of more than five years, no prosecuton witness has been examined by the trial Court in the present case.

3.

Notice of motion.

4.

On the asking of Court, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. 5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6.

The petitioner has placed on record various interim orders passed by the trial Court from time to time. From the perusal of the orders, it is evident that the case has been adjourned repeatedly by the trial Court. Consequently, the trial Court is directed to examine all the prosecution witnesses at the earliest. In case, any prosecution witness does not appear, despite service, coercive process may be issued against such a witness. In the present case, FIR was registered on 29.01.2019 and charge was ordered to be framed on 09.11.2022, so the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of one year from the next date of hearing fixed before it. 7.

Disposed off, accordingly.

(N.S. SHEKHAWAT) 14.03.2024 JUDGE mks Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO Whether Reportable:

YES / NO AMIT RANA 2024.03.18 18:28 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh