JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.Petitioners have approached to this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings pending against them in a Cr. Case No. 19/1991 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) cum-J.M. No. 16, Jaipur City, Jaipur, on the ground of undue delay. In order to appreciate the prayer of the petitioners some facts about the case may be stated. 2. The complainant Radharaman Bhargava, who is now deceased, filed a report at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, on July 21, 1980 with regard to an incident alleged to have taken-place on the same day. On this report, Crime No. 197/1980 was registered for offence order Sections 147, 354 and 323 IPC. The police after investigation did not find any case to have been made-out against the accused persons and in the opinion of the police, there was some civil dispute with regard to the properties between the complainant and his son, namely : Kishoriraman Bhargava. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint on 3.2.1981, in the Court of Judl. Magistrate, No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur with regard to the same incident. As per the complainant's case, his son Kishori Raman Bhargava, had sold certain properties in favour of Nand Kishore by a registered sale-deed on January 8, 1980 which according to him was a joint hindu family properties. It was also alleged that his son Kishori Raman and the accused petitioners wanted to forcibly occupy the remaining part of the house situated in Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. For the incident, it was stated that on July 21, 1980 the accused persons gave feasts and kick blows to the complainant and his family members causing simple injuries. 3. On this complaint, the learned Magistrate, recorded the statement of the complainant and the statement of one Vishnu Dutt Sharma and thereafter issued process against the petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 354, 327 and 353 IPC vide order dated 17.3.1981. It appears that all the accused petitioners appeared in the Court in the year 1981 itself and vide order dated 5.11.1981 the next date was fixed as 25.11.1981 for recording pre-charge evidence of the complainant. Since then the case has been lingering on for one reason or the other. On several occasions, the concerned Magistrate, has recorded that the complainant was delaying trial of the case. Since then the case has been lingering on for one reason or the other. On several occasions, the concerned Magistrate, has recorded that the complainant was delaying trial of the case. On one point of time, the parties were agreeable for the compromise also. The learned PP refused to conduct the case on behalf of the complainant perhaps on the ground that he was not satisfied that it was a fit case to be proceeded with. 4. I have been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has died on 3.8.1988 and the Court has also recorded about the death of the complainant in his order-sheet dated 8.12.1988. From the order-sheets, it also appear that the pre-charge evidence of the complainant has not been completed as yet.In these circumstances, the question arises for consideration whether this Court should quash the proceedings in exercise of the powers under S. 482 Cr.PC. This Court had an occasion to consider in the case of Chhotelal Jain v. The State, 1992(2) WLC (Raj.) 77 , the delay as a circumstance for quashing the criminal proceedings. After considering the various judicial pronouncement of the Apex Court as well as this Court, in para 12 of the judgment the preposition of law was laid down as follows : "2. After discussion of the various judicial pronouncements, the proposition of law in this connection of law in the connection can be laid down as under: (i) A speedy trial is a fundamental right of the accused within the ambit of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India is no more in dispute. But the question whether to be violated on account of the delay in the trial will depend on the facts and circumstances of each cause and no outer limit can be fixed in a general way for all the cases; (ii) While considering the length of delay, the Court, will take into account the period consumed in the investigation of the case and the delay caused in actual proceedings in Court after filling of the charge-sheet. A speedy investigation and a trial are equally mandated both by the letter and spirit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) While deciding such question, the Court shall take into account the working of the judicial system in India and the lack of satisfactory working conditions in judicial courts including large pendency and institution of the cases, inadequacy of judge strength and understanding etc.; (iv) In a pending case to decide the question whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed or any other appropriate direction be given to the trial court to secure the ends of justice will depend on several factors to he taken into consideration, such as, the gravity and seriousness of the offence, whether the delay was occasioned by the tactic or conduct of the accused himself, whether the accused objected at any stage when such delay occasioned, and whether the accused is prejudiced in his defence on account of the delay; (v) If the delay has caused prejudice to the accused and his defence, the pending criminal proceedings should be normally quashed as in that situation it could be said that the accused has been denied an adequate opportunity to defend himself and the trial is not fair and reasonable; (vi) In grave and serious offences against the society or in relation to Nation's economy, defence or security, the criminal proceedings should not be normally quashed on the ground of delay simplicitor without anything further; and (vii) In criminal offences having no or very little impact on the society, quashing of criminal proceedings on the around of delay simplicitor shall be in the interest of justice as it will provide a room for serious and grave offences and will lessen the burden of the Court with heavy work-load. 5. The present case is squarely covered by clause (vii) of para 12 of the aforementioned judgment, which reads as under : Cl (vii) "In criminal offences having no or verb little impact on the society, quashing of criminal proceedings on the ground of delay simplicitor shall be in the interest of justice as it will provide a room for serious and grave offence and will lessen the burden of the Court with heavy work- load." 6. The incident is of the year 1980 and the petitioners are facing trial since 1981 and about 15 years have already been passed since them. The incident is of the year 1980 and the petitioners are facing trial since 1981 and about 15 years have already been passed since them. The offences are of very insignificant nature having no or very low impact of the society. As observed by the Apex Court of the Country; "While it is incumbent on us to see that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that the persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed. They must be given a fair and impartial trial and while every reasonable latitude must be given to those concerned when the detection as of crime and entrusted with the administration of justice, limits must be placed on the lengths to each they may accommodate." 7. Taking into consideration, the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the gravity of the offence and the delay already caused, I am of the opinion, that it is a fit case, in which criminal proceedings be quashed in exercise of the powers under S. 482 Cr.PC. 8. Consequently, the Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed. The Cr. proceedings pending against the accused petitioners referred to above, in the case are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******