JUDGMENT 1. - By this misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. it is prayed that the impugned order dated 26.6.93 be quashed and set aside and the entire criminal proceedings in case No. 235/83 be dropped. 2. The facts of the case are that on 23.10.82, Zila Ayurvedic Adhikari Bharatpur lodged a written report in Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur against the accused-petitioner alleging that the accused-petitioner committed two offences while he was in Government service. The petitioner was posted as Class-IV (Paricharak) under the control of Zila Ayurvedic Adhikari, Sawaimadhopur during the year 1974-75. The service of the petitioner in Sawaimadhopur was neither terminated nor he resigned from that service, and he got entered, his name as unemployed person in District Employment Exchange Office, Bharatpur at No. 727/75, thereafter he got service in Govt. Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Bharatpur on the basis of registration in Distt. Employment Exchange Bharatpur. In August 1982, the District Ayurvedic Officer came to know about this fact, while he received a letter from Distl. Ayurvedic Officer Sawaimadhopur that petitioner was in service of Distt. Ayurvedic Office, Sawaimadhopur and without resigning or termination he got registered himself in the office of Distt. Employment Exchange Bharatpur. The second allegation against the petitioner was that while he was working as Class-IV servant (Paricharak) in Govt. Hospital Ncvara, Distt. Bharatpur he remained absent from 22.1.1980 to 10.3.1980 and his absent was marked in the Attendance- register, but he tampered with the Attendance-Register and he marked his presence by way of over-writing. On this the FIR was lodged and the same was registered at No. 34/83 in Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur. The investigation was conducted and the challan was filed. On the basis of charge-sheet filed by the police, the magistrate took cognizance and framed the charges for the offence under section 420 & 466 IPC. The statements of Shyam Kumar Saxena PW. 1, Rajendra PW. 2 and other five witnesses were recorded till August 1987. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under section 420 & 466 IPC vide judgment dated 24.6.1989. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction. The statements of Shyam Kumar Saxena PW. 1, Rajendra PW. 2 and other five witnesses were recorded till August 1987. The petitioner was convicted for the offences under section 420 & 466 IPC vide judgment dated 24.6.1989. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal against his conviction. The appellate court found that the charges of aforesaid sections have been framed contrary to the provisions of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, set aside the conviction of the petitioner and remitted the matter back to the trial court with a direction to re-frame charges, in accordance with law, vide order dated 7.3.1992. Against that order the petitioner has also preferred the Misc. petition before this Court and this court vide order dated 16.4.92 observed that the CJM Bharatpur after hearing the arguments afresh decide objectively as to whether there is sufficient material to frame the charge. Thereafter, vide impugned order issued 26.6.93 the charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offence under section 420 IPC. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. From the facts on record, it reveals that while the petitioner was in service Class-IV (Paricharak) in Zila Ayurvedic Adhikari Sawai Madhopur and without resigning or termination of his service, he got registered himself in the District Employment Exchange, Bharatpur and on the basis of his registration in the Employment Exchange, Bharatpur he got service in Govt. Ayurvedic Pharmacy, Bharatpur. That shows that the offence was committed as back as in the year 1975 and the FIR has been lodged on 23.10.1982. First time the charges were framed on 28.1.87, it means five years have been taken in framing charges. After trial the petitioner was convicted. 6. The conviction was challenged in appeal and the Appellate Court remitted the matter back to the trial court vide order dated 7.2.93 as the Appellate Court found that the charges have been framed contrary to the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. That order was challenged before this court and this court was of the view that charges have not been framed properly and the trial court was directed to frame charges only if sufficient material is available on record. 7. 7. In this case the offence has been committed in the year 1975 and the fresh charges have been framed for offence under section 420 IPC in the year 1993, and charge under section 466 IPC is yet to be framed, it means that even after lapse of 18 years, the case is still at the stage of charge, at no fault of the accused-petitioner. When court has wrongly framed the charges contrary to the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. why the accused-petitioner should be dragged for no fault of him in endless trial. The speedy trial is a fundamental right of the petitioner. 8. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, ( AIR 1979 SC 1369 ) , their Lordships of Supreme Court have observed as under:- "We think that even under our constitution though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and contents of Art. 21 as interpreted by this Court in Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 . We have held in that case that Art. 21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and it is not enough to constitute compliance with the requirement of that Article that some semblance of a procedure should be `reasonable, fair and just'. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not `reasonable, fair or just', such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Art. 21 and he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be `reasonable, fair or just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonable quick trial can be regarded as `reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Art. 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Art. 21." 9. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Art. 21." 9. Considering the nature of the offence for which the petitioner has faced the criminal proceedings for 18 years and thereby suffered mental agony, in my view, it is also a some sort of punishment to accused-petitioner and sufficient for the offence if any finally made out. In view of the facts stated above, I am of the view that such proceedings should not be allowed to continue further otherwise it will amount to abuse of process of court, and no purpose will be served to continue such proceedings. Therefore, I quash the criminal proceeding in case No. 235/83 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Bharatpur. 10. Consequently, the Misc. petition is allowed. *******