JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition U/s. 482, Cr.PC. has been filed by petitioner (accused) for quashing proceedings in Cr. Case No. 638/81 (FIR No. 390/81) pending before Judicial Magistrate No. 17 Jaipur City. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for present controversy raised herein are that a written report was lodged by respondent No. 2 (Syed Nisar Ali) at police station Vidhayakpuri Jaipur on 22.10.81 alleging inter-alia that he alongwith his wife stayed in Room No. 112, Hotel Raj Near Sindhi Camp on their visit to Jaipur and went outside Hotel for sight-seeing and on return therefrom in the evening, found their personal luggage VIP bag missing in the room. On this report, FIR No. 390/81 was registered by the police for offences U/Ss. 454/380 IPC. After investigation, challan was filed against petitioner (Rajdulari) and Satish Taneja and they were summoned by trial Magistrate and against them cognizance was taken for offences U/s. 454 & 380 IPC vide order dated 04.03.82 and they were released on bail. 3. From proceedings drawn on other sheets of criminal case before trial Magistrate, it appears that on 14.04.82, co-accused Satish Taneja did not appear and accordingly his bail bonds were forfeited and was called upon through arrest warrant vide order dated 14.04.1982 and since then charges could not have been framed against the accused despite the fact that petitioner has regularly been appearing before trial Magistrate. Hence petitioner has approached this Court to invoke inherent jurisdiction U/s. 482 Cr.PC. for quashing the proceedings. 4. Bone of contentions advanced by Counsel for petitioner is that on the day instant petition has been filed, more than 20 years have rolled by and despite standing warrant of arrest being issued, the prosecution. has failed to produce co-accused before the trial Magistrate so as to conclude the proceedings and that apart, trial Magistrate failed to frame charges against the petitioner and that being so, there has been no progress in the trial despite her regular appearance whenever called upon on the date of hearing during last 20 years, which has caused great mental and physical harassment, resulting in miscarriage of justice while she is entitled for fair and speedy trial as guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. In support of contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in State of UP v. KK Gupta, AIR 1970 SC 1279 and of this Court in Devi Singh v. State, 1990 (2) RLW 165 ; Laxmi Chand v. State, 1990 (1) RLR 281 ; Mahavir Prasad v. State, 1995(1) WLC (Raj.) 93 ; Narendra Nath Modi v. State, 1998 Cr.LR (Raj.) 294 ; and Gokul Das v. State, 1999 WLC (Raj.) UC 51 . 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for quashing criminal proceedings, on the ground that charges has yet to be framed and other accused is absconding and it will not be proper to set aside proceedings at this stage looking to nature of offence committed by petitioner. Public Prosecutor further submits that prosecution has not made any lapse or contributed in alleged delay in the trial against petitioner. 6. I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for both the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. From material on record, it is evident that upon submissions of challan, after service of summons, petitioner appeared on 27.01.82 and the case was posted for framing of charges on 04.02.82 and since then despite the fact that petitioner has been putting her appearance on the dates fixed whenever called, charges have not been framed against her. The excuse pleaded by prosecution is that after release of co-accused Satish Taneja, he has never appeared despite standing warrant of arrest being issued and forfeiture of his bail bonds. 7. Be that as it may, this fact stands established from record that there has been no progress in the trial for last 20 years and the prosecution has failed to produce co-accused to send for trial in criminal case nor any effective steps were taken. Arrest warrant could not have been executed for one or other good reasons to procure presence of co-accused despite forfeiture of his bail bonds. That apart, once petitioner has been regularly appearing on the dates fixed in instant criminal proceedings and whenever called, but there has been no progress in the trial and even no charges have been framed against her. However, she cannot be held to be at fault in any manner for the delay having caused in trial pending before trial Magistrate in 1 instant criminal case. However, she cannot be held to be at fault in any manner for the delay having caused in trial pending before trial Magistrate in 1 instant criminal case. On the presentation of instant petition U/s. 482 Cr.PC., more than 20 years have elapsed and nothing substantial has been done in the trial and the case has been lingering on at the stage of framing the charges since 04.03.82 when cognizance was taken by trial Magistrate, against the accused. For practical purpose, there has been no progress in 1 the trial of this case for last about 26 years for the incident having taken place on 21.10.81, which certainly violates fundamental right of petitioner for speedy trial guaranteed under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The delay in trial in instant criminal case has not occurred due to any fault of petitioner and contrarily, despite umpteen opportunity, prosecution has failed to procure attendance of co-accused to stand for trial despite forfeiture of his bail bonds. In the facts of instant petition, this Court is of the opinion that the trial in criminal case against petitioner aged about 68 years cannot be lingered on ad infinitum and she cannot be subjected to further humiliation besides financial loss in facing the trial. Offences alleged against petitioner are also of trivial nature. In such circumstances, this Court finds it a fit case to drop criminal proceedings pending against petitioner. 8. Consequently, misc. petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 638/81 (FIR No. 390/81) pending against petitioner (Rajdulari) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 17 (JD), Jaipur City are hereby quashed. Record be turned back to the court below.Petition Allowed. *******