ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Petitioners have preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. imploring quashment of entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 123/2006, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur (for short, 'learned trial Court'). 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this petition, are that FIR No. 341/2005 came to be registered against petitioners at Police Station Suraj Pole, District Udaipur charging them for offence under Section 3/8 of the Rajasthan Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, 'Act of 1952') insinuating them for running Cinema Hall in the name of Picture Palace at Udaipur without there being a due licence required under the provisions of the Act of 1952. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that by order dated 30th of April, 2005, licence of the cinema hall for exhibiting feature films was cancelled by District Magistrate, Udaipur but the said order was stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2882/2005. It is also argued by learned counsel that pursuant to the interim directions issued by Court, subsequently, licence of the petitioners was renewed by District Magistrate, Udaipur on 21st of October, 2005 and renewal of the licence obviously relate back to the date of expiry. It is in that background, learned counsel has argued that offence under Section 8(1) of the Act of 1952 is not made out. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Shashi Rani v. State of Rajasthan [1987 Law Suit(Raj) 666]. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the misc. petition of petitioners. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the materials available on record. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the decision in Shashi Rani (supra), unhesitatingly, in my view, once the Licencing Authority has renewed a licence under the Act of 1952, it has to relate back to the date of expiry. The Court in Shashi Rani (supra) has held: "But, in my opinion when once the licence has been renewed, this condition loses all its significance because under the proviso to Rule 7 the Licencing Authority has been given a discretion to renew the licence after charging additional fee of Rs. The Court in Shashi Rani (supra) has held: "But, in my opinion when once the licence has been renewed, this condition loses all its significance because under the proviso to Rule 7 the Licencing Authority has been given a discretion to renew the licence after charging additional fee of Rs. 25/- but it cannot impose any other condition once that fee is charged and renewal is made, it means that the delay in filing the application stands condoned and that being so, the renewal must relate back to the date of the expiry of the original licence. When the licence thus, stands renewed from the date of the expiry of the earlier licence, viz. March 31, 1984, the inevitable conclusion would be that the cinema was being run under a duly renewed licence and that being so, the running of the cinema, in these circumstances, cannot be said to be in contravention of Section 3 of the Act. The renewal would thus relate back to March 31, 1985 and mere observation of the learned Collector that the renewal will have no adverse effect on the FIR already filed, would lose its all its significance. In these circumstances, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was at all justified in taking cognizance of any offence under Section 8(1) of the Act against them." 7. In view of above discussion, continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be a sheer abuse of the process of the Court, and therefore, inherent powers are liable to be exercised for quashing the entire proceedings. 8. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 123/2006, pending before the learned trial Court, are hereby quashed.