JUDGMENT 1. - Accused petitioners have been facing trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar for offences Under sections 147, 447, 427 & 323 IPC. On the basis of a complaint filed by Nathu Ram, who is presently respondent No. 1 before me. Originally one Khanga Ram was also summoned by the trial court but he expired and rest of the accused persons who are petitioners have been facing trial. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent and learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this misc. petition Under section 482 Cr.P.C. submitted that though cognizance was taken against the petitioners as long back as on 5.9.88 yet no witness has been examined uptill now and, therefore, in view of common cause judgment, the case should be given final burial and the proceedings be quashed Under section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Briefly stated the facts are that it is alleged in the complaint that land khasra Nos. 228, 229 & 231 is situated at village Karkada over which the complainant is having possession and had his own cultivation. Khatedari of the land was in the name of his father and uncle and that accused persons have no connection with the land in question. On 10.7.88 at about 10.00 a.m. they came in a group and cultivated the land forcibly. One of the complainant was also damaged and when the brother of the complainant put obstruction, he was given beatings. Complainant went to the police station but the police did not register the case. However, complaint was filed and by order dated 5.9.88, the court took cognizance as stated above. The case has been pending for the evidence but not a single witness was examined by the complainant. It was also pertinent to note that a civil dispute was pending in the competent Revenue court. The accused petitioners alleged that the complaint was filed in order to harass and humiliate them. The petitioners are said to be old persons in between the age of 70 to 75 years. It is submitted that the charges are of petty nature and that the petitioners have been attending the court on different dates with no results and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed. 5. The petitioners are said to be old persons in between the age of 70 to 75 years. It is submitted that the charges are of petty nature and that the petitioners have been attending the court on different dates with no results and it is prayed that the proceedings be quashed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nathu Ram and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed. They have relied on Shyam Lal v. The State of Raj., (S.B. Cr Misc. Petition No. 1026/92), decided on 25.5.93 . The petition Under section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed in which it was found that the matter was not prolonged on account of negligence on the part of the prosecution rather it was found that the proceedings prolonged at the instance of the accused petitioners. This judgment is of prior date than of Common Cause judgments. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioners did not appear on different dates and that during the pendency of the case 4 or 5 times bail bonds were forfeited. But it is admitted that in between 1990 to 1996, no witness was examined though the accused persons remained present. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor is that it were the accused petitioners who are responsible for the delay. I have gone through the entire record and can safely say that it is not so. Of course, on some dates, the accused petitioners did not appear personally, but their counsel obtained exemption on their behalf. It did occur that on some dates the accused persons could not appear and hence their bail bonds were forfeited but basically it is the complainant who is responsible for the delay for such a long period right from the date of taking cognizance tili the petition was filed. The two common cause cases are very clear which recognised the fundamental right of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. In "Common Cause", a Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India & ors., (1996) 4 SCC 33 , guidelines and directions for disposal of cases were issued and were further clarified in subsequent judgment in "Common Cause, a Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 775 . In "Common Cause", a Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India & ors., (1996) 4 SCC 33 , guidelines and directions for disposal of cases were issued and were further clarified in subsequent judgment in "Common Cause, a Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 775 . The earlier judgment dated 1.5.96 had laid down that where the cases pending in criminal courts under IPC or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment up to three years, with or without fine, and it 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 case may be, and close such cases. In the latter judgment decided on 28.11.96, it was clarified that the time limit mentioned shall not apply to cases wherein the accused themselves are responsible for protraction of trials. It was further clarified in the latter judgment that in cases of trials of summons cases by Magistrates the trials would be considered to have commenced when the accused who appear or are brought before the Magistrate are asked under Section 251 whether they plead guilty or have any defence to make, and in the warrant cases instituted otherwise than on police report shall be treated to have commenced when charges are framed against the accused concerned Under section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Admittedly the case is a summons case as the offences under which the petitioners are facing trial are 147, 323, 447 & 427 IPC. In the facts and circumstances when the complainant is not bringing any evidence against the petitioners and the petitioners are not responsible for causing delay and the accused persons have a fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this petition deserves to be allowed as the accused petitioners are not responsible for delay. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that a date may be fixed by this Court on which date the complainant will produce all the witnesses as the direction of this Court may be, but I am not ready to accept this argument in the facts and circumstances of this case. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submitted that a date may be fixed by this Court on which date the complainant will produce all the witnesses as the direction of this Court may be, but I am not ready to accept this argument in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much water has flooded under the bridge and the complainant has been sleeping over the matter as he wanted to harass the petitioners. This harassment cannot be allowed any more. 8. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the proceedings pending in before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Neem Ka Thana in Criminal Case No. 218/88 are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******