JUDGMENT 1. - By this petition under Section 482, Cr.RC., the petitioner prayed for quashing the proceedings pending against him in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in Criminal Case No. 46 of 1987 for the offence under Section 409, IPC. 2. Briefly stated that factual matrix of the case, are that first information report was lodged at Police Station, Chhatargarh Dist. Bikaner by the Tehsildar, Revenue Tehsil, Bikaner against the petitioner stating therein that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was entrusted to the petitioner for construction of Patwar Bhawan. It was alleged that he mis-appropriated money of the Government and has not got constructed the Patwar Bhawan. 3. After usual investigation, the challan was laid against the petitioner on 4.1.86. On 10.12.86, the charges were framed and the matter was posted for prosecution evidence. On 9.10.87, the learned trial court fixed the date for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. On this date, the accused-petitioner did not appear before the learned trial court and remained absent and thereafter he remained absconded for considerable long period of about 4 years. His presence was sought by warrant of arrest but despite number of warrants issued against him by the learned trial court, the warrant of arrest could not be executed and as such the accused-petitioner deliberately remained absconded from 9.10.87 till 1.5.91. On this date, he appeared before the learned court. 4. On various dates, the prosecution witnesses were not present. However, some of the prosecution witnesses were examined after the accused-petitioner, put in his appearance. During the period, the accused-petitioner remained absconded many prosecution witnesses were transferred from their place of posting and, therefore, the attendance of some of the prosecution witnesses could not be secured. 5. From perusal of the record, it clearly reveals that the delay in concluding the trial of the case has not only occasioned due to lapses on the part of the prosecution but equally the accused himself has contributed for remaining absconded from 9.10.87 to 1.5.91 for a considerable period of about 4 years and, that was one of the reasons for the delay. 6. Heard learned counsel Mr. M.L. Garg appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 7. 6. Heard learned counsel Mr. M.L. Garg appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the order impugned. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no prosecution witnesses have been examined from 17.11.94.1 have perused the order sheets of the learned trial court. The learned trial court has made efforts to procure attendance of the prosecution witnesses. It appears from the order-sheets that the prosecution witnesses have been transferred from one place to another. 8. In Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa and others [ 1995(4) SCC 41 ] , their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus : "It is common knowledge that currently the criminal courts excel in slow motion. The slow motion becomes much slower motion when politically powerful or rich and influential persons figure as accused. FIRs are quashed. Charges are quashed. Interlocutory orders are interfered with. At very step, there will be revisions and applications for quashing and writ petitions. In short, no progress is ever allowed to be made. And if ever the case reaches the stage of trial after all these interruptions, the time would have taken its own toll : the witnesses are won over; evidence disappears, the prosecution loses interest-the result is an all too familiar one. Repeated admonition of the Supreme Court have deterred superior courts from interfering at initial interlocutory stages of criminal cases. Such interference should be only in exceptional cases where the interest of justice demand it; it cannot be a matter of course." 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, obviously it was the petitioner who did not allow to proceed with the trial on account of his remaining absconding from the trial court for a considerable long period. It is settled law that Courts while invoking inherent powers as envisaged under Section 482, Cr.RC. for quashing criminal proceedings should exercise such powers very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. Viewed from the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case for abuse of the process of court is made out by the petitioner. 10. In my considered opinion, there is no substance in the instant Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, this Misc. Petition is devoid of any merit, therefore, it must fail and it is hereby dismissed. 11. Viewed from the facts and circumstances of the present case, no case for abuse of the process of court is made out by the petitioner. 10. In my considered opinion, there is no substance in the instant Miscellaneous Petition. Accordingly, this Misc. Petition is devoid of any merit, therefore, it must fail and it is hereby dismissed. 11. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I consider just and proper to direct the learned trial court to take appropriate steps to procure attendance of the prosecution witnesses if need be by issuance of bailable warrant or warrant of arrest as the exigency arises and expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within one year from receipt of this order.Petition dismissed. *******