IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 384 of 2025 Date of decision : 9.9.2025. Karan Gupta ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Mridul Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Seema Sharma, DAG. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash FIR No. 254 of 2019 dated 6.12.2019, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Solan, H.P. under Sections 420, 381, 201 of IPC and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequential criminal proceedings, initiated on its basis. 2. Record reveals that on completion of investigation in FIR No. 254 of 2019, registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Solan, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed. Cognizance has already been taken by the learned Special 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Judge, Solan and the matter is fixed for hearing the parties on framing of charges. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing for some time, has submitted on instructions, that the petitioner will not be pressing the instant petition at this stage, reserving his right to raise available pleas before the learned Special Judge, Solan at the time of making submissions opposing framing of charges. He has placed on record the order sheets passed from time to time by the learned Special Judge w.e.f. 27.4.2022 to assert that undue delay has been caused in hearing the parties on framing of charges and on such premise, he seeks directions to the learned Special Judge, Solan to proceed with the trial expeditiously. 4. Having gone through the copies of the order sheets, placed on record, it becomes evident that the arguments on charges were heard on 21.7.2023 and thereafter, the matter has been adjourned repeatedly for hearing the parties on charge. Evidently, the Presiding Officer holding the Court of Special Judge, Solan changed after 21.7.2023, nonetheless, the result is that the trial has not proceeded further even after lapse of more than two years. -3- 5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of having been not pressed with directions to the learned Special Judge, Solan to hear the parties on framing of charges within three weeks from today and to take a decision, whether to frame the charge or not, within one week thereafter. 6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 9th September, 2025. (kck)