Judgment Amar Bir Singh Gill, J. 1. This petitioner by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeks quashing of complaint, Annexure P-1, for which he is facing trial since March 1984 till the filing of the present petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that a complaint, Annexure P-1, was filed pertaining to sample drawn on 22.12.1983 of cows milk which was found to be adulterated on analysis. Therefore, charge was framed on 27.2.1985. Learned magistrate proceeded with the case and adopted procedure provided for a warrant case and till 18.1.1988 granted various opportunities to the complainant to produce evidence, where-after, he strangely dropped the proceeding and instead adopted procedure for summary case and the petitioner was called upon to face summary procedure on 18.1.1988. The case was subsequently adjourned time and again upto 6.3.1991 and as such the petitioner has undergone this protracted trial for about seven years. The petitioners, therefore, seeks quashing of the complaint, Annexure P-1, which amounted to mis-carriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court when the Magistrate started de-novo trial and the petitioner has suffered agony for about seven years of this protracted trial. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Admittedly, in the complaint case, the petitioner faced trial for pretty long time say for 7 years and still he is to undergo de-novo trial as ordered by the trial Court. Speedy trial is the essence of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The present case is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this court reported as Prem Rattan Wadhwa v. State of Haryana, 1997(4) RCR(Criminal) 398 and Indraj v. State of Haryana, 1997(2) RCR 660. In Indrajs case (supra), it has also been held that the expression "trial" would bring within its sweep the appeals that are filed. This petition was filed way back on 29.4.1991 and is being disposed of today. If the petitioner is required to undergo further trial as ordered by the trial Court, it would amount to travesty of justice. This case is also covered by a later decision of this Court rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 2000 - M of 1992, Tarlochan Singh v. State of Haryana & Another, 1994(1) RCR(Crl.) 673 decided on August 17, 2001. 4. This case is also covered by a later decision of this Court rendered in Crl. Misc. No. 2000 - M of 1992, Tarlochan Singh v. State of Haryana & Another, 1994(1) RCR(Crl.) 673 decided on August 17, 2001. 4. Relying upon the above decisions and in view of what has been stated above, there is no other option but quash the complaint, Annexure P1, as well as the proceedings pending in pursuance thereof before the trial Court. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and complaint, Annexure P-1 as well as the proceedings pending in pursuance of the same, are quashed.