A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) AT the relevant time, i. e. in the year 1994 the petitioner No. 1 was the chairman and Managing Director of Goa Ship Yard Limited, a Public Sector undertaking of the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'corporation' ). He had also served as Rear Admiral in the Indian Navy. The petitioner No. 2 at the time was Dy. General Manager (Pers. and Admn.) of the corporation. This Corporation had branch office at New Delhi of which one Sh. S. C. Sharma was the Officer Incharge. He was placed under suspension alleging certain misconduct with effect from 10. 4. 1995. The respondent herein, namely, vandana Jhingan, was selected to the post of Assistant and she joined the Delhi office of the Corporation in 1986. She was transferred to Goa under transfer orders issued on 5. 12. 1994 by the second petitioner. However, she refused to join and allegedly remained absent from office. On 26. 4. 1995 the second petitioner issued show cause notice to her as to why disciplinary action should not be taken for non-compliance of the transfer orders. After receiving this show cause notice, the respondent made complaint to the Secretary, Ministry of defence (Production) levelling certain allegations against the petitioners. The petitioners stated that this complaint was turned down by the Secretary and on 16. 5. 1995 charge-sheet was issued against the respondent and after the inquiry, she was removed from service on 10. 10. 1995. On 15. 5. 1996 the respondent filed a complaint before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (in short the 'acmm') for offences under Sections 354/506/509/500/510 and 120-B IPC against both the petitioners levelling various allegations against them. Cognizance of the said complaint was taken and summons were issued to the petitioners by the learned ACMM. The first petitioner filed petition against the summoning orders in the year 1997 for quashing of the same on the ground that no prima facie case was made out. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, being Crl. M. C. No. 31/97 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8. 2. 2002 observing that the questions raised are questions of fact, which cannot be examined at this stage and it was open to the petitioner to plead the same before the learned trial court at an appropriate stage. M. C. No. 31/97 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 8. 2. 2002 observing that the questions raised are questions of fact, which cannot be examined at this stage and it was open to the petitioner to plead the same before the learned trial court at an appropriate stage. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the learned trial court on 1. 3. 2003. ( 2 ) THE petitioners have approached this Court again by way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. seeking quashing of the proceedings in the said complaint. The ground taken is different, namely, from 1. 3. 2002 till the filing of the petition in July, 2004, the petitioners have appeared before the trial court on number of occasions but the complainant has remained absent in all these proceedings. Applications for grant of exemption are filed on all these hearings, which have been allowed and the trial court is repeatedly granting exemption to the respondent/complainant. Hearings have taken place during this period on 1. 3. 2002, 16. 4. 2002, 18. 7. 2002, 22. 10. 2002, 10. 1. 2003, 26. 2. 2003, 1. 5. 2003, 15. 7. 2003, 8. 10. 2003, 6. 11. 2003, 27. 11. 2003, 17. 1. 2004 and 1. 4. 2004 Thus, in this backdrop, the petitioners now want the proceedings to be quashed as the respondent/complainant is not interested in pursuing the complaint; she has remained constantly absent; the learned trial court has given undue indulgence in granting exemptions rather than dismissing the complaint for want of appearance of the respondent/complainant; in the process the petitioners, who are in their late 60s, are harassed as they are facing criminal prosecution for almost 10 years. It is argued that the petitioners are residents of Kerala and Goa respectively and they have to come from far away places to attend the hearings. Though they have been appearing in the matter regularly, but for want of respondent's appearance they have to go back without any hearing and it is causing severe hardship and immense inconvenience, in addition to huge expenditure, which the petitioners have to incur on their travel, boarding and lodging on each date of hearing. Though they have been appearing in the matter regularly, but for want of respondent's appearance they have to go back without any hearing and it is causing severe hardship and immense inconvenience, in addition to huge expenditure, which the petitioners have to incur on their travel, boarding and lodging on each date of hearing. Their submission is that the proceedings cannot be allowed to drag on for indefinite period and this amounts to negation of petitioners' right to speedy trial, which is part of the right to life and liberty of the petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution of India. It is further submitted that if the respondent is not appearing, the trial court is obliged to dismiss the complaint under Section 256 of the Cr. P. C. and there has been a failure on the part of the trial court to exercise this jurisdiction. ( 3 ) NOTICE of this petition was issued to the respondent on 7. 10. 2004 and it was further directed that the proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing. This interim order has been extended from time to time. Counsel for the respondent appeared on 21. 2. 2005. The matter could not be heard earlier as the trial court record, which was summoned, had not been received. After the trial court record was received, the matter was fixed for arguments on 14. 12. 2006. On that day, however, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent and in these circumstances, counsel for the petitioner was heard. ( 4 ) I have perused the trial court record. It appears from the record that the respondent is away to United States because of which she is not appearing in the mater and exemption from personal appearance has been sought on this ground, which has been allowed by the trial court from time to time. In these circumstances, the petitioners are right in their submission that they cannot be made to face the prosecution endlessly when the complainant herself is not appearing in the Court. If she has gone to USA and for that reason she is not attending the Court, that would not mean that she enjoys the luxury of remaining absent on this ground and makes the petitioners suffer by not appearing in the court on all these dates without any business being transacted. If she has gone to USA and for that reason she is not attending the Court, that would not mean that she enjoys the luxury of remaining absent on this ground and makes the petitioners suffer by not appearing in the court on all these dates without any business being transacted. What is more disturbing is that since 15. 3. 2005 even the complainant's counsel is not appearing. Order sheet dated 15. 3. 2005 shows that when nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant and the petitioners (accused) were also absent, the learned trial court instead of dismissing the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant or her counsel, issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioners for 18. 8. 2005. On coming to know of this order, the petitioners appeared and got the said non-bailable warrants cancelled vide order dated 16. 8. 2005. Thereafter, when the matter came up for hearing on 18. 8. 2005, again nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant. Instead of dismissing the compliant, court notice was issued to the complainant for 18. 11. 2005. On the next date, i. e. 18. 11. 2005 the complainant's counsel appeared and the matter was adjourned to 28. 2. 2006. Even on that date, nobody appeared on behalf of the complainant. The matter was again adjourned to 24. 4. 2006. On 24. 4. 2006, again the complainant remained unrepresented, i. e. neither she appeared nor her counsel appeared in the court on her behalf. Instead of dismissing the complaint the learned trial court again issued court notice to the complainant for 23. 10. 2006. Proceedings could not take place on 23. 10. 2006 as, in the meantime, this file was summoned by this Court. The aforesaid narration of proceedings before the trial court would show that no interest is taken in these proceedings by the complainant and even the complainant's counsel has stopped appearing. ( 5 ) AS mentioned above, even in this Court when the matter was argued on 14. 12. 2006, none appeared on behalf of the complainant. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to dismiss the complaint and discharge the petitioners, who are in their late 60s or early 70s coming from Kerala and gao respectively and, therefore, they cannot be allowed to undergo this harassment, which remains unabated due to lack of interest shown by the complainant. In these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to dismiss the complaint and discharge the petitioners, who are in their late 60s or early 70s coming from Kerala and gao respectively and, therefore, they cannot be allowed to undergo this harassment, which remains unabated due to lack of interest shown by the complainant. This petition is accordingly allowed and consequently the complaint is dismissed.