V.S. DAVE, J.—This is a miscellaneous application under S. 482 Cr.P.C. wherein a prayer has been made that entire proceedings pending against the petitioners for offence under Ss. 332 and 451 IPC in the court of Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, be quashed on the ground that despite a lapse of period of 10 years the prosecution has failed to complete the trial and further that the order of Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Moaistrate dated 12.3.1987 has not been followed in letter and spirit. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that on July 22, 1979 a report was lodged by one Mool Chand, an Officer in N. C. C. at Government Higher Secondary School, Roopbas. It was mentioned in the application that the complainant was distributing the admission forms on the morning of July 22, 1979 at 10.00am. The accused-petitioners who were students at that time came to him and asked for admission. On his refusal they started snatching the form and attacked him with lathies and clubs. He ran out for protection but they followed him up to the hostal and fell him down. Thereafter they again beat him and snatched Rs. 80/- from his possession. He named certain witnesses who intervened. The police registered a case for offence under Ss. 353. 332, 323 and 379 IPC. After completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted for offence under Ss. 332, 323 and 451 IPC. Police did not find the case proved for offence under Ss 353 and 379 IPC. About the allegations under S 379 it was specifically mentioned that the story of removal of Rs. 80/- was not found to be correct. The charge sheet has been submitted on 15 12.79 and the case went on leasurely for arguments on charge till 2.9.83 when the accused was discharged for offence under S. 323 IPC and charge was only framed for offence under Ss. 332 and 451 IPC vide order sheet, dated 2.983. The case was posted for prosecution evidence on 14. 12. 83. Ever since then, for one reason or the other the evidence could not be recorded. The accused thereafter moved an application in 1987 which was disposed of by the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bayana on 12.3.87. 332 and 451 IPC vide order sheet, dated 2.983. The case was posted for prosecution evidence on 14. 12. 83. Ever since then, for one reason or the other the evidence could not be recorded. The accused thereafter moved an application in 1987 which was disposed of by the learned Addl. Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bayana on 12.3.87. The prayer in the application was for dropping the proceedings in view of the fact that accused were facing trial for a period of 7 years and the prosecution was not producing its evidence. It was also mentioned that the accused had ever since then entered in Govt. service and it is causing undue harassment to them that for a petty offence which was committed in 1979, proceedings for last such a long time period are going on. He relied on S. Guin vs. Grindlaya Bank Ltd. (1) T.V., Vatheeswaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu(2), G. Balchand Verma vs. State of MP. (3), Madheshwardhari Singh vs. State of Bihar(4) and State vs. Maksudan (5). 3. The learned Magistrate held that in his humble opinion the principles laid down were directory and in this case according to him, one opportunity should have been given to the prosecution for completing the evidence instead of quashing the proceedings. Since one witness has been examined till then and seven remained to be examined. The learned Magistrate gave 7 months time to the prosecution to complete the evidence, but it appears that since the evidence has not been completed despite the fact that two more years have elapsed the petitioners have approached this court in this application under S. 482 Cr.P.C 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the circumstances of the case continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the court in as much as 10 years have passed and the prosecution has not yet completed its evidence. The submission of the learned counsel is that the accused were of tender age at the time of alleged occurrence. In this case Abhinandan Was shown to be aged 17 years in the charge sheet and accused Thansingh to be 16 years and for a Juvenile Act at best on their part they have virtually been punished for all these years in shape of physical, mental and economic strains. In this case Abhinandan Was shown to be aged 17 years in the charge sheet and accused Thansingh to be 16 years and for a Juvenile Act at best on their part they have virtually been punished for all these years in shape of physical, mental and economic strains. It is submitted that this is a fit case where proceeding be quashed in the light of the decision of their loardships of the Supreme Court in T.J. Stephan vs. M/s Parle Bottling Col (P) Ltd. (6). 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that one more opportunity may be given to the prosecution to lead the evidence in the instant case. 6. The record was called for to find out the cause of delay, nature of the offence and took into the circumstances leading to filing the present application, I have carefully gone through the entire record and find that there . are much more grounds for quashing the proceedings, than the one raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Neither it is a case of fair investigation nor a fair trail as I gathered the facts of the record. The incident took place on 22 7.79 and the allegations, as stated above, were only to the extent that when two students studying in the school wanted to join NCC. were refused admission, they got annoyed and beat the N.C.C. Officer in his own office. No effort was made by the investigating officer to verify the date of birth of both these boys from the school record and to see whether he could even file a charge sheet in a court of Magistrate law against them in view of the provisions of Rajasthan Children Act. At the time when the chargesheet was filed the petitioners Abhinandan and Thansingh have been shown to be 17 and 16 years respectively, meaning thereby on the date of commission of the crime they were of an age by which their cases were covered for being dealt with under the provisions of Rajasthan Children Act and no jurisdiction vested in the regular courts to take cognizance. Even the efforts have not been made to collect the alleged torn out forms and also to find out as to wherefrom these two young boys brought the lathies and dandas in the room of the officer of N.C.C. where they had gone, according to the prosecution itself, for seeking admission to N.C.C. A perusal of record convinces me that effort has not been made to find out the real genesis of the story. According to the statements of some of the witnesses these two boys who are residents of a village situated in a remote corner went in the office of the complainant and asked for the forms but Mool Chand refused slating that they do not fall within the prescribed rules. It is not stated by any of the witness that these boys came armed in the office and misbehaved initially, I cannot conceive of that the boys of 15-16 years staying in a remote village would dare beat an officer of the N.C.C. in his room unless they were greatly provoked by some circumstance which has not been brought on record, and for that reason alone I would quash the charge against the accused-petitioners on merits as well. But besides this there are other compelling circumstances that the trial has not been concluded for a period of full 10 years. For reasons best known to the prosecution the witnesses are not coming to the court. Eversince 12.3.87 when the learned Magistrate had granted 7 months more time to the prosecution to complete its evidence only one witness has been examined and that too beyond the period of 7 months granted. Jagdish Prasad was examined on 9.12.87, i.e., after 9 months who too did not support the prosecution story. Thus, there is inordinate delay of a decade in proceeding with this criminal prosecution for offence under Ss. 332 and 451 IPC where even if the entire case is proved neither of the accused can be punished, in view of sec. Jagdish Prasad was examined on 9.12.87, i.e., after 9 months who too did not support the prosecution story. Thus, there is inordinate delay of a decade in proceeding with this criminal prosecution for offence under Ss. 332 and 451 IPC where even if the entire case is proved neither of the accused can be punished, in view of sec. 6 of Probation of Offenders Act even though they may be convicted and, therefore, relying on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Srinivas Gopal vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (7) wherein it has been held as under : "Having regard to the nature of offence there is enormous delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution by the appellant-9-1/2 years for a trial for rash and negligent driving, is too long a time. Quick justice is a sine qua none of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 9-1/2 years without any cause at all and none was indicated before the learned Magistrate or before the High Court or before us cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. In that view of the matter, it is just and fair and in accordance with equity to direct that the trial or prosecution of the appellant to proceed no further. We do so accor-dingly". On the strength at catena of other cases mentioned in the order of the learned Magistrate himself I find that this is a fit case where the proceedings should be quashed. Thus the petitioners succeed on various grounds inter alia: 1. that the proceedings are basically without jurisdiction as the case should have been considered for being sent to the Children Court, 2. that the genesis of the prosecution story has not deliberately been put for ward, 3. that there is an inordinate delay in proceedings resulting in violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, and so on. 7. I therefore, accept this petition and direct that in criminal case No. 65/80 pending trial in the court of Addl. Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, proceedings be quashed.