JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J. Admit. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Respondent No.2 is remained absent in spite of service of notice for final disposal of the matter through paper publication. 3. The applicants are challenging the proceedings viz, Regular Criminal Case No.242 of 2001 initiated before 29th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. 4. It is specifically contended by the applicants that though the proceedings are initiated by respondent No.2 in the year 2000 at learned J.M.F.C. Court Nagpur and though in the matrimonial proceedings before the Family Court, Nagpur, initially the attempts were made for settlement by them, subsequently, respondent No.2 has been consistently absent in the matrimonial proceedings filed before the learned Family Court as well as in the proceedings before the learned J.M.F.C. Court. As a result of which, the proceedings before the Family Court initiated at the instance of respondent No.2 have been dismissed in default. 5. The contention as raised by the applicants have gone unchallenged. 6. The continuation of criminal proceedings for more than ten years and particularly when the applicants are residing at Chindawada (M.P.), and when the complainant is consistently absent would amount to nothing but a harassment to the applicants. If respondent No.2 was really interested in prosecuting the criminal proceedings against the applicants, then she could have very well remained present before the learned J.M.F.C. Court, Nagpur and prosecuted the proceedings. But this has not been done by respondent No.2. Inspite of service of notice through paper publication the complainant has remained absent even in the present proceedings. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceedings would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 7. In view of that, criminal application is disposed of in above terms. Application allowed.