Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.— This petition has been filed with prayer for issuance of direction to expedite the Criminal Case No. 2906 of 2011 (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Vs. Som Prakash Tiwari and others), under Sections 419, 420, 418, 468, 463 I.P.C., Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, court no. 16, Sultanpur. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and Sri V.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Advocate General. 3. Briefly stated facts are that petitioner moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate allowed the application vide order dated 14.02.2006 with direction to the Police Station concerned to register the F.I.R. and investigate the matter. 4. After investigation, final report was submitted on 23.06.2007. Petitioner filed a protest petition which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, court no.28, Sultanpur on 03.11.2007 and said application was registered as complaint case. 5. The order dated 03.11.2007 was challenged by way of revision (revision No. 564 of 2008) which was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C, court no. 13, Sultanpur on 06.01.2009. Revisional court has set aside the order dated 03.11.2007 for treating the protest petition as complaint, passed by the Magistrate concerned, and matter was remanded back to the learned Magistrate to decide afresh in the light of observations given in the judgment and in accordance with law. 6. It appears that matter was transferred from one court to another and nothing could be done in pursuance of remand order passed by revisional court. Dates after dates are fixed in the matter. 7. Grievance of the petitioner is that he is not able to see the outcome of the F.I.R. which was lodged by him on 14.02.2006. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. was lodged in the year, 2006. Final report was submitted. Protest petition was allowed. The order of Sessions Judge has been passed in the year, 2009 remanding the matter to Magistrate for deciding afresh but more than three years have elapsed without there being any order of Magistrate. 9. A report was called from Sessions Judge, Sultanpur who informed this Court that as on 30.06.2012, 4501 final reports are pending in District Sultanpur. 10. More shocking is the figure of final reports. On 29.02.2012, 3,21,528 final reports were pending; during one year, 1,74,142 final reports were filed while disposal was merely 85,390. 11. 9. A report was called from Sessions Judge, Sultanpur who informed this Court that as on 30.06.2012, 4501 final reports are pending in District Sultanpur. 10. More shocking is the figure of final reports. On 29.02.2012, 3,21,528 final reports were pending; during one year, 1,74,142 final reports were filed while disposal was merely 85,390. 11. After First Information Report is lodged, Investigating Officer after investigation can submit chargesheet or final report. If final report or closure report is submitted, the informant may file objection, if he so desires. After considering the material, Magistrate is supposed to either accept the final report or reject the same, take cognizance or proceed further treating the same as complaint or direct further investigation. Most of the cases are uncontested. No evidence is required to be taken before passing the order on the final report. Evidence is taken only if protest petition is treated as complaint, as such there should not be any difficulty before the Magistrate in disposing of the final report. 12. Delay caused owing to non-service of notice upon informant is understandable, but this delay can also be checked as summon-cell working under C.J.M./C.M.M. has no other task but to serve the process of the court. Persistent defaults can be discussed in the Monitoring-cell meeting presided by District Judge wherein D.M., S.S.P. and C.J.M. do participate. 13. It is unfortunate that final reports are kept pending for years not because of any fault on the part of the parties but due to indifference on the part of the Magistrates. Present case establishes this. 14. Once chargesheet or final report is submitted before the Magistrate, the matter comes within the domain of the judiciary. Unfortunately, it is this area where we have failed to ensure deliverance in time. Contested trials cannot be decided in haste. But the matters where there is no contest or little contest should be decided expeditiously. At least, this will rid the litigants of unnecessary visits to courts. Experience shows that final reports remain pending for years. Sometimes for more than 8 to 10 years. Patience of informant should not be tested for long especially where only orders are to be passed and no other formality is required. 15. In these circumstances, learned Additional Advocate General submits that proper direction may be issued to secure the ends of justice. 16. Sometimes for more than 8 to 10 years. Patience of informant should not be tested for long especially where only orders are to be passed and no other formality is required. 15. In these circumstances, learned Additional Advocate General submits that proper direction may be issued to secure the ends of justice. 16. In Cr.P.C. time limit/guidelines for investigation and trial have been indicated. If no time is prescribed for final reports/protest petitions for disposal where record is available, three months time could be treated to be reasonable time. 17. In view of what has been stated above, in exercise of the powers under Section 483 Cr.P.C., this Court directs the Chief Judicial Magistrates and the Magistrates working under him to dispose of the final reports pending before them on priority basis, if possible, within a period of three months from the date of submission of final report. 18. Sessions Judge may impress upon C.J.Ms. and other Magistrates to first priortise those case in which notices have been served upon informants and are older in point of time. Progress of service of notice upon informants be monitored regularly in monthly meeting and meeting of monitoring cell presided by Sessions Judge. It may also be ensured that the cases in which notices have been served are not adjourned in routine manner as is practice in vogue. In such cases only orders are to be passed. 19. List on 30.08.2012 for further hearing and monitoring the progress. 20. Registrar to communicate the order to all the District Judges. _____________