JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have invoked the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings of the Crl. Case No. 185/88 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar under section 7 r/w 16 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. The complaint was filed by the Food Inspector, Nagaur against the petitioners on 29.11.1988. The petitioners appeared in the Court on 26.4.1989. The petitioners moved application for sending the sample to Central Food Laboratory which was allowed. The case was adjourned number of times for receiving second sample search was ultimately received on 24.7.1991 and 5.9.1991. Thereafter the case could not make progress because there was no posting of the presiding officer.Thereafter the case was adjourned for hearing the arguments on the point of cognizance taken against the petitioners. The case was further taken up for the attendance of the partners of the firm against whom the summons were issued by the Court for the said purpose. The case was adjourned upto 28.10.1995. Thereafter one accused remained absent and the case proceeded for procuring the attendance of that accused upto 27.8.1997. Several times, the process were not issued by the office of the Court thereafter, the presiding officer was transferred and now the case is pending for the attendance of the accused persons. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no role was assigned to the present petitioners-Gopal and Kailash Chandra because they purchased the oil from the manufacturer and the offence under section 7 r/w 16 P.F.A. Act is not made out against them. It is submitted that the petitioners are regularly attending the Court and adjournments are causing unnecessary harassment to them. The case was delayed because of the application filed by the prosecution to implead the manufacturer as accused and service on the manufacturer took long time. Now 11 years have passed and the case is still pending at this stage of summoning the other accused persons. It is therefore, argued that the continuation of the proceeding amounts to abuse of the process of the Court because of in ordinance delay to complete the trial and this should be quashed in the interest of justice. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer a the ground that the trial Court is proceeding with the trial in accordance with the prescribed procedure and law. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer a the ground that the trial Court is proceeding with the trial in accordance with the prescribed procedure and law. No delay has occasioned due to the lapse of the prosecution. Therefore it is contended that merely because the case is pending for the last 11 years, the proceedings cannot be quashed. On the other hand it is also argued that the accused persons are themselves responsible for the delay because they remained absent during the trial number of times and the case is pending for attendance of other accused persons. It is wrong to say that the petitioners are being harassed because their applications for exemption of attendance have been granted by the Court whenever necessary. 4. I have gone through the certified copy of the proceedings submitted on behalf of the petitioners. It has been noted in the proceedings dated 27.8.1997 that the clerk of the Court has not issued summons for several dates and case has been delayed. He was directed to issue summons against accused No. 6. The case was adjourned innumerable times by the Court in a routine manner for issuing the process to procure the attendance of accused No. 6. The trial Court did not take any effective and specific action against the defaulter to procure the attendance of accused No. 6 and without application of mind the case went on adjourned simply with the directions to issue process against accused No. 6. It was reported on 5.11.1997 that one accused-Bansidhar expired and the case proceeded for verification of this fact. The learned Public Prosecutor took number of adjournments to verify the fact of the death of accused-Bansidhar. It has been again observed by the trial Court in the proceedings dated 4.4.1998 that the clerk has not issued the process to summon accused No. 6 for the last so many dates and required the concerned clerk to submit his explanation. Even the Public Prosecutor could not submit his report about the death of co-accused-Banshidhar. It has been again observed by the trial Court in the proceedings dated 4.4.1998 that the clerk has not issued the process to summon accused No. 6 for the last so many dates and required the concerned clerk to submit his explanation. Even the Public Prosecutor could not submit his report about the death of co-accused-Banshidhar. It is true that Court has tried to give relief to the petitioners by granting exemption to them but the facture remains that the case is pending against the petitioners for the last 11 years and so much so that even service of accused No. 6 has not been effected so far mainly due to the negligence of the clerk by not issuing the process. It is not clear from the record that what action was taken by the Presiding Officer against the erring official. 5. In the above circumstances, it is clear that the petitioners have not contributed in any manner towards delay in the completion of the trial or in making progress in the case. They have been attending the Court regularly on seeking exemption of attendance because their presence was not required when the case was fixed for procuring the attendance of accused No. 6. The Court granted the exemption of attendance but this fact cannot lead to this conclusion that the petitioners were in any manner responsible for delay. Of course, the case has not come to the stage of evidence for any reason whatsoever but this case has remained pending without the fault of the petitioners for the last 11 years whether it be a cause on the part of the prosecution or the Court. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that the continuation of the proceedings now is not justified after 11 years as no useful purpose will be served in keeping the proceedings still pending. I am of the view that the proceedings should be quashed in the exercise of the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Resultantly, the petition is hereby allowed. The proceeding of the Crl. Case No. 185/88 pending in The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbatsar Food Inspector v. Chandra & Ors . is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******