ORDER : S.R. Sen, J. 1. The brief fact of the case in nut shell is that, one minor girl Ms. Epika Kharbuli was allegedly raped and assaulted by the respondent accused on 28-9-2011 at Kseh Pyndeng village, Mawryngkneng and the police has registered a case as SR No. 39 of 2011. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the victim was continuously raped in the past also; hence the IO prayed for extension of time for filing of charge-sheet before the District Council Judge. The said Court mechanically without applying its judicial mind dropped the proceeding against the accused respondent which has resulted a serious miscarriage of justice. 2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 8-3-2013; the instant revision petition is moved before this Court u/s 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. On admitting the revision petition, this Court on 24-4-2013 issued notice to the respondent and also called for Lower Court case record bearing GR No. 408(A) of 2011 u/s. 324/506/376, IPC and also directed the Judge District Council Court to appear in person before this Court. 4. On 2-5-2013, the matter came up for hearing after receiving the Lower Court case record. None appeared on behalf of the accused/respondent though record speaks that notice has been served upon the accused/respondent. The Judge District Council Court appeared along with senior counsel Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew and filed Crl. Misc. Case (SH) No. 30 of 2013. 5. Mr. N.D. Chullai, the learned PP who appeared on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 8-3-2012 has been passed against the principle of law and without following any procedure. He also further argued that, if such orders are passed in cases like murder, rape then people will bound to lose faith on the whole judicial system and prayed for set aside the said impugned order and to pass necessary direction. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. The learned senior counsel Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew appeared on behalf of the Judge District Council Court who submits that adverse remark passed by this Court vide order dated 24-4-2013 needs to be expunged. 6. On enquiry the Judge District Council Court has submitted that he has compelled to pass such an order as police failed to comply with the order of the Court. H.S. Thangkhiew appeared on behalf of the Judge District Council Court who submits that adverse remark passed by this Court vide order dated 24-4-2013 needs to be expunged. 6. On enquiry the Judge District Council Court has submitted that he has compelled to pass such an order as police failed to comply with the order of the Court. He also submits that if the impugned order is set aside, he will not dispose the case even if it remains pending for a long period of time. 7. I have perused the Lower Court case record and now before coming to the position of law, let me examine the impugned order dated 8-3-2013 and the same is reproduce below: The case is posted today for final report/charge-sheet. The police failed to submit a final report/Charge-sheet with regard to the instant case even after a lapse of almost two years. The failure on the part of the police to complete the investigation even a lapse of two years, proves that the police who are the Investigating Agency lost their interest to pursue with the instant case. It is due to this kind of attitude committed by police that crimes is increasing now. I am of the view that as the police lost their interest to pursue with the instant case, hence, this Court is helpless and has got no alternative but to drop the instant case from further proceedings. The case is hereby dropped from further proceedings and the accused person is hereby discharged from all the liabilities of the instant case. Let a copy of this order be forwarded for information and necessary action to:-- 1. Law Department. 2. The S.P. East Khasi Hills. 3. The O/c Madanrting P.S. Case stands disposed of 8. A bare perusal of the impugned order as referred to above, it is apparently clear that the matter was fixed for FR/Charge-sheet but the said FR/Charge-sheet was not placed before the Court on the date fixed and the learned Judge District Council came to a conclusion that, "I am of the view that as the police lost their interest to pursue with the instant case, hence, this Court is helpless and has got no alternative but to drop the instant case from further proceedings" and dropped the case and discharged the accused from the liabilities. The said order does not reflect whether the accused, PP and defense counsel were present, nothing is found mentioned there. 9. Just because the IO failed to file to charge-sheet in time cannot be the ground for disposing of the case by way of discharging the accused from the liabilities. Once again I remain that no doubt speedy disposal of trial is the expectation of the people but at the same time it is the duty of the Court to see that such speedy and hurried disposal should not cause injustice or fail to meet the ends of justice. Ultimately it is the duty of the Court to render substantial justice in criminal trial. There is no outer limit for conclusion of criminal proceeding but it differs from case to case. The Court has ample power to ask and to ensure for filing of FR/Charge-sheet, the Court can even summon the high rank of the police officer and bring to their notice that, IO is not co-operating with the Court's order and to take necessary action and pass necessary order to file the FR/Charge-sheet whatever the case may be within a reasonable time. 10. Therefore, I find that the impugned order does not have sufficient ground to dispose the case where heinous crime is involved. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8-3-2013 is hereby set aside, GR No. 408(A) of 2011 u/s. 324/506/376, IPC is hereby restored back to that stage from where it fell down and the learned Judge District Council is directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 11. Details procedures of the session triable cases have been already discussed in my Judgment in the case of Crl. Revn. P. (SH) No. 34 of 2013 and to reproduce the same may burden the judgment, hence, it is not necessary. 12. Before I part with the case record, I observe that I was not happy the way the learned the Judge District Council Court behaves before the High Court which is actually contemptuous in nature. However, for this time I am not taking any firm stand but in future he should maintain courtesy and decorum as and whenever he is called for. However, for this time I am not taking any firm stand but in future he should maintain courtesy and decorum as and whenever he is called for. I also did not find anything to expunged from my order dated 24-4-2013 and the fact remains that the impugned order dated 8-3-2013 is against the principle of law, so it is naturally whimsically and illegal. Hence, Misc. Case No. 30 of 2013 moved by judicial officer through his counsel stands rejected. 13. The Director General of Police Meghalaya is also directed to instruct all the Public Officers and Police Stations to give priority to summon warrant issued by the Court and to submit the report in time so that trial will proceed smoothly without any delay and to remind the police personnels that they are part of the criminal justice system. 14. With these observations and directions, this instant revision petition is allowed and let a copy of this judgment and order be circulated among all the officers of the subordinate Courts in the State of Meghalaya and to the Director General of Police, Meghalaya. Registry is directed to roll back the Case Record to the Judge District Council along with a copy of this judgment & Order immediately.