JUDGMENT Shambhoo Singh, J. 1. This is an application filed u /Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6/97 pending in the Juvenile Court, Indore. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on the report lodged by Sandhya Soni as Mahila Thana, Indore on 14.11.1990 against the petitioner, her brother-in-law (Dever), husband Balkrishan, mother-in-law Basanibai and others. Crime No. 178/ 90 was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet Under Sections 498A and 506/34 of the I.P.C. and Under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was filed. After the completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined. After defence evidence, when arguments were being advanced, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order on 10.1.1997 holding that the petitioner was aged about 14 years on the date of commission of the offence and under the circumstances he had no jurisdiction to try him and directed the S.H.O., Mahila Thana, Indore, to submit the charge-sheet against the petitioner in the Juvenile Court, Indore. In view of this direction, Mahila Thana police, Indore, filed a chargesheet against the petitioner in the Juvenile Court, Indore which has been registered as Criminal Case No. 6/97. 3. Mr. Jaisingh, learned Counsel for the applicant, relying on the judgment of this Court reported in 1981(1) M.P.W.N. 107 , Lalsingh v. State of M.P., argued that the applicant who is aged about 14 years faced trial for seven years, now he has been directed to face trial again in the Juvenile Court. He submitted that it is true that the J.M.F.C. had no jurisdiction to try the applicant but as a period of seven years has elapsed, the order for retrial should not have been given. Therefore, the proceedings of Crl. Case No. 6/97 should be quashed. Mr. G. Desai, learned Government Advocate, tried to support the impugned order. 4. Admittedly, on 14.11.1990, the date of alleged incident, the applicant was aged about 14 years and he was juvenile as per the definition of Section 2(h) of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 and he could be tried only by Juvenile Court. The learned J.M.F.C. had no jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore, the trial before the Magistrate is vitiated and normally the matter has to be sent back for fresh trial in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. The learned J.M.F.C. had no jurisdiction in the matter. Therefore, the trial before the Magistrate is vitiated and normally the matter has to be sent back for fresh trial in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. But as stated above, the incident took place in the year 1990 and the applicant faced trial for seven years, no useful purpose would be served by sending him back for trial before Juvenile Court under this Act after lapse of seven years. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Lalsingh (supra), where the accused was 13 years of age and was tried by Sessions Judge and convicted him Under Section 302 of the I.P.C., was not sent back for fresh trial to Juvenile Court on the ground of long lapse of time. In view of above, the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6/97 in Juvenile Court are quashed. Bail bonds of the applicant are discharged.