JUDGMENT : S.K. SAHOO, J. 1. This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner Ajaya Kumar Panda for quashing the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 589 of 1995 arising out of Baisinga P.S. Case No. 83 of 1995 pending in the Court of S.D.J.M.,(S), Baripada. 2. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the case is of the year 1995 and in the meantime about 22 years have passed and the case has not reached its finality and therefore, invoking power under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court should quash the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner. 3. The law is very well settled that the delay which has occasioned by action or inaction in the prosecution is one of the main features which are to be taken note of by the Court. A deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the accused is weighed heavily against the prosecution in as much as delay violates the constitutional rights to speedy trial of the accused. The Court while deciding the case has to see whether there is unreasonable and unexplained delay which has resulted in causing serious prejudice to the accused. There is no dispute that there cannot be any straight jacket formula in a particular case to quash the criminal proceeding if the trial is not concluded within a particular time limit. The nature and gravity of the accusation, the qualitative and quantitative materials collected during course of investigation, the conduct of the accused in causing the delay are also to be considered by the Court. (Ref:-Rama Chandra Behera Vrs. State of Orissa and another, (2017) 66 Orissa Criminal Reports 178). 4. In this case in order to substantiate contention that the petitioner is no way responsible for causing delay of the proceeding, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed the order sheet of the learned Court below or brought any other material. This Court vide order dated 21.04.2010 directed the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada and Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj regarding the status of the case vis-a-vis reconstruction of the records in G.R. Case No. 589 of 1995. 5. This Court vide order dated 21.04.2010 directed the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada and Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj regarding the status of the case vis-a-vis reconstruction of the records in G.R. Case No. 589 of 1995. 5. The report of the learned S.D.J.M., Baripada dated 18.05.2010 indicates that after receipt of the order dated 21.04.2010 of this Court passed in this case, the matter was put up before regular Court on 18.05.2010 and on the very day, the message has been sent to the IIC, Baisinga P.S. with copy to S.D.P.O., Betnoti through Special messenger to produce all the connected papers on 18.05.2010 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 589 of 1995. No further intimation has been received from the Court of learned S.D.J.M. (S), Baripada. In absence of any material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to appreciate the contentions raised, I am unable to accept the contention to quash the proceeding on the ground of delay in disposal of the case. 6. Since no other grounds has been taken by the petitioner in this criminal Misc. Case, I am not inclined to invoke my inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding. 7. If in the meantime, the record has not been reconstituted by the learned S.D.J.M., (S) Baripada, the same shall be done at an earliest. At the time of framing of charge, the petitioner may take any grounds available to him for discharge which will be duly considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. 8. Since it is a case of the year 1995, the learned Trial Court shall do well to expedite the proceedings in G.R. Case No. 589 of 1995 and conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the Criminal Misc. Case is disposed of. 10. A free copy of the order be sent to the learned Trial Court for compliance.