JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioners herein are the accused in C.C.No.3225 of 2001, on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the final report has been filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 352, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged date of occurrence is 23.01.2001 and the complaint was registered on 10.02.2001 and final report was filed on 23.04.2001. Thereafter, there was no progress in the trial. The petitioner had been attending the court for the past 10 years. Even a single witness was not examined by the prosecution and the case was adjourned periodically. In the said circumstance, the petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that the second accused in this case did not appear before the trial Court from 01.10.2007 to 31.01.2009 and non bailable warrant was pending. 4. This Court considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and perused the records. 5. The case is pending for trial from the year 2001. Except the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, the other offences under Sections 341, 352, 294(b), 323 IPC are only bailable in nature. Though the case is pending for the past ten years, not even a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. Though the second petitioner/second accused was not appearing before the Court from 01.10.2007 to 31.01.2009, during other periods, there is no progress in the case. The prosecution is not in a position to explain regarding the delay. In fact, the prosecution had admitted that L.W.1, defacto complainant could not be produced. Even though the summon was served to the first informant, L.W.1, he had not appeared before the trial Court. It is not possible in this case to say that the delay in conducting the case has been caused by the petitioner/accused. Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. Due to long delay in conducting the trial, the right of these petitioners/accused for a speedy trial has been infringed. 6. In the said circumstance, following the principles enunciated in Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak reported in (1992 SCC(Cri.) 93) and Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in ( (1998) 7 S.C.C 507 ), the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. 7. 6. In the said circumstance, following the principles enunciated in Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. R.S.Nayak reported in (1992 SCC(Cri.) 93) and Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar reported in ( (1998) 7 S.C.C 507 ), the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. 7. This criminal original petition is ordered accordingly.