Judgment N.Pandey and Amir Das JJ. 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing of Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1980, arising out of Kotwali P. S. Case No. 110, dated 18-9-1974, registered under Sections 307/326/114 of the Indian Penal Code and also Section 25 of the Arms Act. 2. It appears on 18th September, 1974 at about 8.30 p. m. while the informant was at his shop, some altercation took place. It is alleged that on account of firing by the petitioner, one Ghashi Ram sustained injury on his cheek. On account of such occurrence, there was some Hulla and the petitioner was caught hold at the place of occurrence by the persons of the locality. 3. The defence of the petitioner is that he has been falsely implicated and the offence as alleged, was committed by one Prem Kumar Singh, who according to him, also accepted his guilt before the police. However, no charge-sheet was submitted against him by the police. 4. This application was filed mainly on the ground that in view of ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Madheshwar Dhari Singh and Dilip Kumar De v. The State of Bihar and others, 1986 PLJR 767 (FB), this was a fit case in which an order for quashing of the entire prosecution be recorded, as there has been a delay of more than seven years. 5. It would be relevant to notice that the decision of this Court to the extent of fixing upper time limit for disposal of the criminal trials, was not approved by the Supreme Court in the case of A. R. Antulay etc. v. R. S. Nayak and another etc., 1992 (1) PLJR 41 (SC). However, in the said case it was held that in appropriate cases, having regard to the nature of allegation and other surrounding circumstances, a Court can order for quashing of prosecution, if there is inordinate delay. 6. Although the First Information Report in this case was lodged in the year, 1974 but we have not been able to find out any material to hold that such delay has been caused at the instance of the prosecution. It is stated that after commitment the case was transferred to the Assistant Sessions Judge on 2-10-1980. But unfortunately, till 6-9-1986 no step was taken for framing of charges etc. 7. It is stated that after commitment the case was transferred to the Assistant Sessions Judge on 2-10-1980. But unfortunately, till 6-9-1986 no step was taken for framing of charges etc. 7. It is not clear under what circumstance such delay was caused. It may be possible that during that time no court was available. Therefore, in absence of any such material, it is difficult for us to hold that such delay was deliberate. 8. But thie cannot be ignored, that the petitioner is facing the ordeal of the criminal prosecution since the year, 1974. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the only appropriate order at this stage would be to direct the court concerned to dispose of the case positively within six months from the date of appearance of the accused. Accordingly, we direct the petitioner to appear on or before 20th December, 1995 before the court concerned so that the trial itself be concluded within the time fixed by this order. With the aforesaid observations, this application is, thus disposed of.