JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.PC has been moved by nine petitioners against the order of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makrana dated 11.1.1995 by which he took cognisance against all of them after following the due procedure provided under Criminal Procedure Code and after discussing the evidence given by the witnesses against them. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant. 3. A report was lodged against the petitioners as well as certain other persons at police station Makrana on 16 9.1982. Police did not submit challan against the present petitioners but when evidence was recorded the witnesses stated the names and the acts done by the present petitioners, therefore, the learned Magistrate took cognisance against the petitioners under Sections 451 and 323 IPC and summoned them by impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not arrayed as accused in the challan filed by the police and no application was moved by the prosecutor or the complainant for arraying them at the time of filing of charge sheet, while the offence is said to have committed on 16.9.1982 and the order has been passed by learned Magistrate on 11.1.1995 which is almost after 12 years and according to the counsel it is the abuse of process of court. Reliance has been placed on Dindayal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) page 166 , in which it has been observed that a Magistrate is expected to consider as to when and under what circumstances he was going to exercise the powers vested in him by law. It is the only judicial exercise of such powers to which law affords its recognition and not any arbitrary exercise of such powers which may result in harassing an innocent person. It is for that reason that the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are required to be very sparingly exercised in most deserving cases. On the basis of this, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been summoned to abuse trial on the basis of a false report. 5. It will not be proper to express any opinion about falsity or correctness of the FIR but suffice it so say that the witnesses on oath have named all the accused petitioners. On the basis of this, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been summoned to abuse trial on the basis of a false report. 5. It will not be proper to express any opinion about falsity or correctness of the FIR but suffice it so say that the witnesses on oath have named all the accused petitioners. Of course the petitioners are summoned after a very long time of submission of challan but this is a proverbial delay in this case. In the above said citation relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I do not find any mention of this proverbial delay. The settled law is that the order taking cognisance can be quashed only in very exceptional circumstances. I do not find that there is any abuse of process in this case. Mere delay in proceedings could not he sufficient to quash the proceedings. 6. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******