JUDGMENT 1. By this petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner has requested this Court to quash the proceedings pending against him in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura, in Criminal Case No. 47/1974 under S. 193/194 Indian Penal Code for the last more than two decades and thus prevent the abuse of the process of the said Court. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that regarding an incident of 'marpit' with him and his brother Ghanshaym on October 26, 1973 at 7.30 P.M. by one Shri Mohan Lal son of Shri Madan Lal, the petitioner had submitted a written report on that day at Police Station, Shahpura whereupon crime No. 176/1973 under Section 324/379 Indian Penal Code was registered. After investigation a report under section 173 Cr. P.C. was submitted on 22.07.1994 by the police against the aforesaid Mohan Lal in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Shahpura and Criminal Case No. 433/1974 for offences under Section 323/325 Indian Penal Code was registered. In respect of the same incident the petitioner had also filed a private complaint against the aforementioned Mohanlal and seven others in the Court of the same Judicial Magistrate. On the basis of this private complaint Criminal Case No. 18/163 of 1973 was registered on November 20, 1993 against Mohanlal and seven others for offences under Sections 147, 325, 307/149 Indian Penal Code on July 27, 1974. The two cases; one registered on Police report and the other on private complaint, were consolidated by the learned Magistrate. By that time the New Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had come into force w.e.f. April 1, 1974. The learned Magistrate, therefore, committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Jaipur on 28th August, 1974 against all the eight persons. The learned Sessions Judge, however, discharged all the accused save Mohanlal vide his order dated October 3,1974 and the order of discharge so passed was also confirmed by this Court on December 15,1978 in S.B. Cr. Revision Petition No. 466/1974. 3. While the committal proceedings were still pending before the learned Magistrate, Madan Lal, accused filed an application dated 6th August, 1974 complaining to the Magistrate that the petitioner had falsely stated in his statement recorded under section 200 Cr. Revision Petition No. 466/1974. 3. While the committal proceedings were still pending before the learned Magistrate, Madan Lal, accused filed an application dated 6th August, 1974 complaining to the Magistrate that the petitioner had falsely stated in his statement recorded under section 200 Cr. P.C. that he had not lodged any FIR in the case whereas he had filed one whereupon report under S. 173, Criminal Procedure Code was submitted by the police against Mohanlal. Prosecution of the petitioner for offences under Section 193/194 Indian Penal Code was prayed for in this application. The petitioner opposed this application on several grounds but the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences under Section 193/194 against the petitioner on November 27,1974 and registered criminal case No. 47/1974 against him on December 17,1974. He directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor attached to his Court to be the Incharge of the prosecution and prepare a regular complaint to be filed in his Court. Nothing was done for a long time and ultimately on November 20, 1984 the petitioner was charged with the offence under Section 193 Indian Penal Code. Since then no witness has been examined by the prosecution. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned P.P. for the State at sufficient length and closely studied the record of proceedings of the Court of the learned Magistrate. The record of the proceedings held by the learned Magistrate who dealt with this case represents not only their legal incompetancy but also lack of consciousness on their part to see that the process of the Court is not abused and courts do not become the forum of harassment to the litigant public. 5. It is evident that the learned Magistrate in total disregard of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) Cr. P.C. took cognizance of the offences punish- able under Section 193/194 Indian Penal Code at a stage of the proceedings when the court of Sessions at Jaipur and thereafter this Court was seized of the matter and that too on an application by the accused in the case and not on a complaint in writing of the Court. P.C. took cognizance of the offences punish- able under Section 193/194 Indian Penal Code at a stage of the proceedings when the court of Sessions at Jaipur and thereafter this Court was seized of the matter and that too on an application by the accused in the case and not on a complaint in writing of the Court. After having taken cognizance on 27.11.1974 and being of opinion on 15th January, 1975 that filing of a complaint was not necessary and Madan Lal (applicant), Phoolchand and Suwalal were to be examined as witnesses, the learned Magistrate directed that the proceedings be kept in abeyance for the reason that the main case was pending consideration/trial before the learned Sessions Judge but continued to fix the hearing of the case from time to time. On 17.6.1980 he directed that a complaint be filed before him in the case. After four years on 31.1.1984 the learned Magistrate formed the opinion that since cognizance was taken under section 344 Cr. P.C. there was no necessity pf a complaint being prepared and filed before him and on 20.11.1984 he framed a charge under Section 193 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and directed the A.P.P. to file the list of witnesses. The last order-sheet written on August 9, 1994 shows that neither the list of the witnesses was filed by the A.P.P. nor the prosecution produced any witnesses for being examined at the trial. The record of the proceedings of the Court of the learned Magistrate goes to show that the case was listed for hearing for more than 100 times and on a majority of occasions the petitioner attended the Court of the learned Magistrate. It really presents a sorry state of affairs that the petitioner had been attending hearing of the case before the learned Magistrate for the last more than two decades without any progress towards the completion of the trial. This certainly amounts to the abuse of the process of the Court. 6. In the case of Shri Niwas Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1729 it was observed by the Apex Court that quick justice is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that keeping a person in suspension state without his fault cannot be in consonance with the spirit of procedure by Law. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1729 it was observed by the Apex Court that quick justice is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that keeping a person in suspension state without his fault cannot be in consonance with the spirit of procedure by Law. The same principle was re-iterated in the case of Om Prakash Vs. The State of Rajasthan, Cr. L.R. 1991 (Raj.)216 . In fact where the delay is not attributable to the accused the sword of democlus cannot be allowed to remain hanging over his head for an indefinite period. Time and again, the Apex Court had stressed over the necessity of imparting speedy justice to the litigant pubic and in this behalf, a reference may be made to the cases of Hoosinara Khatoon and ors.Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1350 ; Sheela Verse Vs. Union of India, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1773 ; Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1991 RCC 510 and Prithvi Raj Vs. State, 1992 (1) RLW 94 . In view of the principles enunciated in these cases the facts and circumstances of the present case loudly speak and demand that the abuse of the process of the Court being adopted in the case of the petitioner may be prevented by this Court in order to maintain faith of the public in the administration of the criminal justice. Accordingly, I would like to quash the proceedings pending against the present petitioner in the Court of the learned Judl. Magistrate, Shahpura, in Cr. Case No. 47/1974 for offences under S. 193/194 Indian Penal Code. 7. Before parting with the file, I would like to observe that it would have been better for the Magistrate concerned, had he studied the relevant provisions of law before taking cognizance of offence under section 193 Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioner he would not have adopted the procedure which was not certainly permissible under the law. This Court expects that the Magistrates concerned, would take due note of these observations recorded by this Court in the context of the proceedings in the present case. 8. In the result, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of learned Judl. Magistrate, Shahpura, in Cr. Case No. 47/1974 for offence under S. 193/194 Indian Penal Code are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. 8. In the result, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in the Court of learned Judl. Magistrate, Shahpura, in Cr. Case No. 47/1974 for offence under S. 193/194 Indian Penal Code are hereby quashed and set aside. 9. The Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******