JUDGMENT 1. - The short point which I am called upon to decide in this criminal miscellaneous petition is related to the fundamental right for speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. There is no dispute that the petitioner has been facing trial in a criminal case under section 420, 419/34 of the Indian Penal Code since July 7, 1982 on which the charge sheet was filed by Police Station Kama against him. Thereafter charges under section 419 and 420 IPC were framed against him on September 17, 1987. After hearing the final arguments, the case was posted for pronouncement of judgment of December 8,1996. 3. The trial court instead of disposing the case, observed that charges under section 419 and 420 IPC were not properly framed therefore in view of section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the charges were amended and under section 467, 468 and 420 of the IPC. The accused denied charges and again claims trial. The learned Public Prosecutor application for summoning the witnesses and case was posted for reply and arguments over the said application. 4. The petitioner has filed this petition under section 467 IPC for the order dated December 5, 1996 as well as entire proceeding of criminal case No. 144/82 pending before Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate Kama on the ground the protracted trial has offended his fundamental right in speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 5. In Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary State of Bihar, ( AIR 1979 SC 1360 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court indicated that if a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair and just then such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21. The accused person is entitled for a reasonably expeditious trial, which is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty. 6. In Sheela Barse's case, ( AIR 1986 SC 1773 ) it was propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if an accused is not tried speedily and his criminal trial remain pending before the Magistrate of the Sessions Judge for unnecessary of unreasonable fundamental right of speedy trial is vitiated. Consequence of such a fundamental right is that the trial would be liable to be quashed. 7. Consequence of such a fundamental right is that the trial would be liable to be quashed. 7. In Shri Niwas v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh ( AIR 1988 SC 1729 ) , it was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that quick justice is a sine qua non of Article 21 and that keeping a person in suspension state without his fault can not be in consonance with the spirit of the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the trial stood vitiated on that account and quashed the same. 8. Similar of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The criminal case is pending for the last 14 year and half years. The delay was not caused by any fault or dilatory tactics of the accused. Charges were framed in the year 1987 and no move for amending the said charges was ever put forward by the prosecution. Learned Magistrate also posted the case for pronouncement of judgment of December 5, 1996 but thought it proper to amend the charges instead of pronouncing the judgment on the said date. Learned Magistrate while doing so, has ignored the fundamental right of speedy trail guaranteed to the accused petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution. Successive denovo trials resulted in protracted proceedings have deprived the petitioner of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, and just and such offends the provisions of Article 21 whereby he has a fundamental right for trial. 9. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and circumstances, the petitioner cannot be exposed to mental torture physical harassment and successive denovo trials. The petitioner is facing trial for the last 14 and half years and no useful purpose will be served in issuing directions to the learned Magistrate to complete the denovo trial. To my mind, it is a fit case wherein the inherent powers of this court should be invoked under section 482 Cr.RC. for preventing the abuse of the process of the court and also to secure the ends of justice. 10. Upshot of the above discussion is that petition is allowed and impugned order dated December 5, 1996 as well as entire proceedings in criminal case No. 144/82 , "State v. Alladin and others " pending in Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate Kama, are hereby quashed.> Petition allowed. *******