JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned orders and other material available on the record of the lower Courts. Facts relevant and sufficient to dispose of these petitions may be briefly stated as under:- In the year 1952 Shiv Chand Yogi petitioner was working as Head Constable In the Police Department of the State. He could perhaps not maintain good relations with his collegues and superiors and had incurred displeasui e leading to his suspension/termination from service. The petitioner appears to have approached the Courts for his grievance against his illegal arid unjustified suspension/termination from service. His case Shiv Chand Yogi v. State & Ors. reported in 1983 RLR page 255 may be referred in that behalf wherein the entire story of petitioner's repeatedly coming to the Courts for redressal of wrongs done to him may be gathered. Anyway, the petitioner appeared to have obtained some relief from the Court and he put the decree so obtained by him to execution. It is alleged that certain premise in the possession with the police department is attached and this is stated to have further enraged the Police Officer stationed at Police Station Jhunjhunu against the petitioner. Petitioner at that time was posted in the police line, Jhunjhunu. 2. It is in the above background that it is stated that on 12.12.1985 when the petitioner went to the Court to attend hearing of his case he was wrongfully arrested by the Police Officers for having committed offence under section 170/171 IPC. The petitioner is said to have been handcuffed and paraded in the city and locked in the Police Station. Not only this, the complaint for offence under section 170/171 IPC was also filed against him. This complaint/police report have been filed on 3.12.1985 but, anyway, came to be finally dismissed on 5.5.1987. The petitioner claimed compensation under section 250 Cr.P.C. on the dismissal of vague and frivolous complaint/police report filed against him by the police officer. The learned Magistrate declined to accept his prayer and in revision the Addl. Sessions Judge upheld his order. The order of the learned Addl. Sessions ;miff dated 29.11.1997 passed and order in revision No. 5/97 (113/93) has given rise to section 3. CT. Misc. Petition No. 2/98. 3. The learned Magistrate declined to accept his prayer and in revision the Addl. Sessions Judge upheld his order. The order of the learned Addl. Sessions ;miff dated 29.11.1997 passed and order in revision No. 5/97 (113/93) has given rise to section 3. CT. Misc. Petition No. 2/98. 3. Aggrieved by his illegal and totally unjustified arrest and detention by the Police Officer, the petitioner filed a complaint for offence under sections, inter alia, 120-B ex. 220 IPC against 16 persons including several Police Officers. In such complaint two accused only namely Veerbhan Ajwani the then Dy. S.P. Jhunjhunu and Faiz Mohd. the then Sub-Inspector Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu summoned as accused in the case as per order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge passed on 8.1.1997 in Cr. Revision No. 83/96 (539/96) Shiv Chand Yogi v. State. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that due to the absence of the accused persons in the case during the trial the proceedings are unnecessarily hit. 4. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for compensation under section 250 Cr.P.C. is concerned the interest of justice demands that the matter should be looked into afresh by the Magistrate taking note of the ,decision and the history of the case and the observation made by this Court in the case of the petitioner reported in 1983 RLR page 255 (supra). The record placed before me discloses that after having filed complaint under section 170/171 IPC against the petitioner the complainant/prosecutor had not at all cared to appear before the Court. The very fact is that the petitioner was in the active service of police department itself suggests that his status as public servant and as an employee of the police department was knowingly denied and disputed by the complainant/prosecutor in that case the petitioner appears to have been prosecuted in the case for sufficiently long time with no progress of the case and ultimately the case was not dismissed. This prima facie discloses abuse of the process of the Court of Magistrate, Jhunjhunu and therefore the grievance of the petitioner deserves to be reheard in the interest of justice. This prima facie discloses abuse of the process of the Court of Magistrate, Jhunjhunu and therefore the grievance of the petitioner deserves to be reheard in the interest of justice. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge in the case under section 170/171 Cr.P.C. are therefore set aside and the case remanded to the learned Magistrate with the direction to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for compensation under section 250 Cr.P.C. afresh, this Court would have itself decided the issue here and now, had the relevant record been with this Court. The learned Magistrate would, therefore, call for all relevant record relating to the arrest and detention of the petitioner by the Police Officers at the relevant time, as also looking into the record of the case which at that time. 5. In the other revision the only prayer of the petitioner is for expeditious disposal of the case. The prayer made Is quite reasonable and should be granted by this Court. 6. In view of the above discussion in S.B. Cr. Misc. 537/97 it is directed that trial Court shall hear the case as expeditiously as possible and T-1 case the accused persons .therein failed to put in appearance before him either in person or through his counsel he would take steps to procure their attendance and shall also report to this Court about compliance or non-compliance of this order. 7. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 2/98 the orders of the Court below are set aside and the matter is sent back to the learned Magistrate with the direction to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for compensation under section 250 Cr.P.C. in the light of the observation made hereinabove. 8. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.Petition allowed. *******