JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, J. - Notice has been given to the State Counsel who had even asked for the instruction from the S.D.M. but it appears that he has not extended the courtesy to inform the learned Government Advocate with respect to the facts. In view of peculiar circumstances of the case I dispense with the issue of notice to opposite party because in my opinion it is not necessary to prolong litigation which is contrary to law. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The proceedings have been initiated under Sections 107/111/116 Cr.P.C. in July, 1984 calling upon the applicants to appear on 1st August 1984. They were further directed to show cause why they should not be bound down with a personal bond of Rs. 2000.00 and two sureties in the like amount for the period of one year. Thereafter the proceedings are lingering and nothing has been done on any occasion. The opposite party on whose behalf present proceedings had been initiated did not appear and proceedings are pending till date. Such a procedure is wholly unwarranted and contrary to the provisions of law. It amounts to abuse of process of law. In my opinion, it is a fit case where such a high handed action on the part of the S.D.M. in prolonging the proceedings contrary to law deserve to be quashed. The proceedings in case No. 394 of 1984 initiated by S.D.M. Mohanlalganj are hereby quashed. It is however, open to him to initiate fresh proceedings if he so finds desirable. This petition stands finally disposed of in the light of observations made above.