JUDGMENT 1. - Admit. Notice was given to P.P. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In this case an FIR was registered against the present petitioners on the basis of complaint filed before the Magistrate and sent by him under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station for investigation in respect of offence under sections 147 & 323IPC, allegedly taken place on 20.11.1986. After investigation police submitted negative report but learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences vide his order dated 31.1.1989 and summoned the present petitioners as accused thereof. 3. It appears that all the accused could not put in appearance for sufficiently long time. However, all the 5 petitioners appeared on 27.11.1997 and moved application for dropping the proceedings of the case in view of the Law laid-down by this Court and Apex Court in such matter. The learned Magistrate declined to drop the proceedings of the case against the petitioners on the ground that all the accused in the case had not put in appearance by that time before him. 4. Mr. K. Shrimal, learned counsel for the petitioner inviting attention of the Court to the Law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Common Cause A Registered Society v. Union of India & Ors., 1996 (4) SCC 33 submitted that taking note of fruitless pendency of criminal cases of petty nature, the Apex Court had clearly directed the subordinate Courts to terminate the proceedings in such cases. It was submitted that occurrence, in the present case, had been allegedly committed in the year of 1986 and offence alleged to have been committed were punishable with imprisonment for less than three years. It was further pointed out that the case had already been pendency on the file of the learned Magistrate for the last more than 10 years and, therefore, direction given in para 4(2)(f) of the said case by the Supreme Court clearly stood attracted to the petitioner's case. 5. It was further pointed out that the case had already been pendency on the file of the learned Magistrate for the last more than 10 years and, therefore, direction given in para 4(2)(f) of the said case by the Supreme Court clearly stood attracted to the petitioner's case. 5. Para 4(2)(f) of the cited case, the Apex Court directed: "Where the cases pending in criminal Courts under IPC or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment upto three years, with or without fine, and if such pendency is for more than two years and if in such cases trials have still not commenced, the criminal Court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the cases may be, and close such case." 6. It is quite clear that the Apex Court had desired that where the pendency of criminal case was for more than 2 years and trial in such case had not been commenced and the offence complained of was punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years only, accused has to be discharged or acquitted, as the case may be. The directions so given by the Apex Court in respect of such type of offences were though modified, by subsequent in the same case by their Lordship of Supreme Court, reported in Registered Society v. Union of India & Ors., 1996 (6) SCC 775 yet the mandate contained in para 4(2)(f) of the earlier order was not disturbed. Since in the present case also all the accused have not so far put in appearance even after expiry of about 10 years, there is no sense in keeping the proceeding of the case alive. Pendency of the criminal case against the petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and such abuse is required to be prevented. Therefore, following the above decision, it is directed that criminal proceedings in the present case against the present-petitioners as also against other accused, if any, are hereby quashed and shall stand dropped and the accused are discharged of the offences under sections 147 & 323 IPC. 7. The petition is allowed.Order accordingly. *******