Judgment N.Pandey, J. 1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of the entire prosecution in G.R. No. 1856 of 1979, arising out of Lalganj P.S.Case No.7 dated 10-11-1979, registered under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears on the basis of a written report, submitted before the Officer-in-charge, Lalganj Police Station, a case was registered on 10-11-1979 against one Lagandeo Roy under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently on 2-9-1985 Inspector, Co-operative Police vigilance Cell, Muzaffarpur, filed an application before the Magistrate with a prayer that the name of the petitioner be also added in the column of the accused persons in the First Information Report. The learned Magistrate directed accordingly that the name of the petitioner should be mentioned separately and kept with the First Information Report. Thereafter, it appears from the order-sheet that on 3-7-1986, the final report was submitted before the Court. But unfortunately till 25-4-1995 neither any cognizance was taken nor any order was passed either rejecting or accepting the final report. 3. The defence of the petitioner is of total denial of the allegation. According to him, the petition which was filed in the year 1985, was purely motivated and on account of malice. It is stated that the First Information Report was registered as back as on 10-11-1979 on the basis of audit report. Therefore, if there was something adverse against the petitioner, the natural conduct of the prosecution was to include his name in the First Information Report or immediately thereafter. But unfortunately, such a petition was filed virtually after six years of the lodging of the FIR. 4. The other aspect of the case is more shocking. The First Information Report in this case was registered on 10-11-1979. The final report was submitted by the police on 2-9-1985. But as indicated above, till 25-4-1995, as it would appear from the certified copy of the order-sheet attached with the supplementary affidavit, no cognizance was taken. 5. In my view, such type of unexplained delay by the prosecution or the Court is in clear violation of the constitutional guarantee, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is true that no time has been prescribed by the Legislatures under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other Jaw fixing any time limit for disposal of a criminal case. It is true that no time has been prescribed by the Legislatures under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other Jaw fixing any time limit for disposal of a criminal case. But as it has been held by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in several cases that a criminal case cannot be allowed to continue for an indefinite period because of the laches of the prosecution and, the Court. 6. I have already noticed that this case was registered as back as on 10-11-1979 and really about 16 years have passed, the Court has not yet been able to take cognizance. Therefore, it would be highly unjust to allow the sword of prosecution to hang over the head of the petitioner for an indefinite period. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, I have no option but to quash the entire prosecution so far the petitioner is concerned. 8. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire prosecution in G. R. No. 1856 of 1979, arising out of Lalganj P. S. Case No. 7 dated 10-11-1979, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali (Hajipur) is quashed.