JUDGMENT 1. - By the criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the order dated 02.07.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu (for short "the revisional Court") has been challenged by the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 25.12.1996 and Judicial Magistrate, Sujangarh, District Churu (for short "the trial Court") took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC on 25.08.2005, almost after 9 years from the date of occurrence. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the order impugned. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. 6. On careful perusal of the orders passed by trial Court as well as revisional Court, it appears that both the Courts below have not considered the factum of delay. There are as many as 9 years delay in taking the cognizance and no sufficient material is on record to justify such an inordinate delay. The offences, noticed above, do not attached any gravity. In my view, the Court below fell in error in passing the order impugned. No useful purpose will be served now allowing the proceedings, almost after twelve and half months from the date of occurrence. In the circumstances, therefore, the criminal misc. petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Consequently, the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 25.08.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Sujangarh as also the order dated 02.07.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh are hereby set aside. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner stands quashed. Stay petition disposed of.Petition allowed. *******