( 1 ) THE inherent powers of this Court are invoked to quash the criminal proceedings of Case No. 326 of 1984 under section 500 I. P. C. initiated on the summoning order dated 19. 5. 1984 passed in the above mentioned complaint case. ( 2 ) THE contents of the complaint are that Smt. Girisha Kumari ( petitioner no. 2) was married to Birbal Singh, the brother of the complainant Balbir; that Smt. Girisha Kumari earlier lodged a case against the complainant Balbir Singh that he confined her in a room and had raped upon her. The said case lodged by the petitioner Smt. Girisha Kumari ended in acquittal. Balbir Singh (the sole opposite party), therefore, filed a complaint u/s 500 I. P. C. wherein the summoning order dated 19. 5. 1984 was issued against the petitioners hence they have filed this petition to quash the said summoning order as also the criminal proceedings mentioned above. ( 3 ) THE petitioners counsel contended that Smt. Girisha Kumari was already a victim of sexual exploitation by the elder brother of her husband that she couraged to lodge the F. I. R. against Balbir; that despite her victimisation Balbir Singh was not convicted. Moreover he has filed a complaint of defamation against the petitioners. He pleaded that the quashing of the impugned order and of the proceedings pending in the court below is in the interest of justice. He also relied upon the pronouncement given by the Honble Apex Court in "common Cause" A Registered Society through its Director Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1996) 4 S. C. C. 33 and drew my attention to Para 2 (f) of the said ruling. The Honble Apex Court has held as under :- " (f) 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 if 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. " ( 4 ) THE aforesaid direction given by Honble Supreme Court is not applicable in the case in hand for the simple reason that the Case No. 326 of 1984 pending in the court below could not gain progress due to the stay order passed by this Court on 7. 10. 1985. The period during which the proceedings remained stayed by virtue of the order of the superior court is liable to be excluded from the period pointed out by Honble Apex Court. ( 5 ) THE petitioners counsel further argued that the directions were issued not only against the trial court but also against the superior courts which have stayed the proceedings. The proceedings of court below remained stayed on the petition of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, cannot take advantage of the period during which the proceedings in the court below remained stayed. The version that Smt. Girisha Kumari was confined in a room and rape was committed upon her is a version contrary to the version given in the complaint. This court in its inherent power cannot enter into an inquiry to adjudicate the truthfullness of the rival facts or rival versions. No case for quashing the impugned order or proceedings pending in the court below is made out. The petition lacks merit hence is dismissed. ( 6 ) THE offence is bailable. The bail application of the petitioners when moved, be disposed of the same day. Communicate this order to the court below within 3 weeks. . .