JUDGMENT 1. :- This petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by four petitioners to quash the proceedings in Case No.301/91 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur titled as State of Rajasthan v. Narendra Prasad and others under section 498-A Indian Penal Code . 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the record. 3. A written complaint was filed by Smt. Neelam against the petitioners to the then Prime Minister of India late Shri Rajiv Gandhi on the basis of which FIR No.309/98 was registered at Police Station Chomu for the offences under sections 306, 498-A & 120-B Indian Penal Code. Ultimately after investigation police submitted challan for various offences and the case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. He discharged the accused petitioners from the charge under section 306 Indian Penal Code and sent the matter back to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur vide order dated 21.10.1991 as he found that offence under section 498-A Indian Penal Code was made out. Consequently, charge under section 498-A Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused petitioners on 21.5.1993. The case is pending for trial and till the petition was filed, no witness was examined. Even the complainant did not appear in the witness box. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the copies of the order-sheets of the trial court which show that not even a single witness has been examined. The last order-sheet is dated 27.7.2000 when the court ordered that the witnesses may be summoned by bailable warrants and fixed the case for evidence of prosecution on 31.8.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even thereafter no witness has appeared. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Narendra Prasad Pareek, accused No.1 was married to Smt. Neelam on 28.6.1986. Both of them lived happily till October, 1986 at Chomu but in October, 1986, Smt. Neelam went away with her mother along with her 'stridhan' to West Bengal and was residing with her parents and had deserted the husband. She treated the husband with cruelty and alleged that the husband was having illicit relations with his brother's wife. She had also lodged a report to the police earlier under section 498-A Indian Penal Code. She treated the husband with cruelty and alleged that the husband was having illicit relations with his brother's wife. She had also lodged a report to the police earlier under section 498-A Indian Penal Code. The husband moved an application before the Family Court, Jaipur in order to obtain divorce which was resisted by Smt. Neelam who admitted that she was married to Narendra Prasad but pleaded that she was being treated with cruelty and she was driven out of the house in October, 1986. Ultimately the Family Court after recording the evidence of parties allowed the divorce petition on 8.3.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of decision in case of Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar AIR 1998 Supreme Court 3281 the proceedings may be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it were the accused petitioners themselves who were responsible for the delay for the simple reason that the order sheets show that on no date all the accused petitioners were present and ultimately the court ordered on 27.7.2000 that the witnesses be summoned by bailable warrant of Rs. 1,000/- each and fixed the case on 31.8.2000 and that he was not aware as to what happened in the case thereafter to which learned counsel for the petitioners replied that no witness has been examined even after the expiry of this date uptill now. 6. I have gone through the order-sheets of the trial court and find that on earlier occasion warrants were issued but even then the witnesses did not turn up. There is not even a single date during the aforesaid period when any witness of the prosecution might have appeared. Unfortunately, the prosecution is not able to explain as to why the witnesses did not turn up and why the prosecution was not able to procure them. There should be an end to the proceedings and it is a fit case in which I should exercise powers to quash the proceedings. 7. The offence under section 498-A Indian Penal Code provides punishment for three years and fine. There should be an end to the proceedings and it is a fit case in which I should exercise powers to quash the proceedings. 7. The offence under section 498-A Indian Penal Code provides punishment for three years and fine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court issued guidelines in (2) 1992 AIR SCW 1872 that in cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the Court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period and the Court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case. 8. There is no doubt about it that from Hussainara Khatoon's case till today it has been held that speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. In this case, I find that the first information report was lodged in the year 1988 and challan was submitted on 6.7.1989 and as stated earlier charge under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, I order that since enough is enough prosecution should not be given an upper hand now to prosecute the petitioners. It appears that there has been abuse of the process of court in this case and, therefore, the proceedings should be quashed. 9. Consequently, this misc. petition is hereby allowed and the proceedings in Cr. Case No.301/91 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, Jaipur, namely State of Rajasthan v. Narendra Prasad and others are quashed.Petition Allowed. *******