YADAV, J. - (1.) - This instant Criminal Misc. Petition under sec. 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed against an order and judgement dated 9. 12. 93 passed by learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gaddi, District Banswara rejecting the application dated 10. 6. 93 moved by the present accused-petitioners claiming speedy trial emanating from Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, According to the petitioners, cognizance was taken by the court on 7. 7. 83 and immediately after service of summons, the present accused - petitioners put in their appearance in Court but due to non- appearance of other 14 accused-persons, they are being harrassed in the present case for more than 10-1/2 years.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case leading to the present dispute, are as follows. Respondent Smt. Anshumala filed a complaint against the present four accused-petitioners along with 14 other accused- persons for the offence under Sec. 494 read with Sec. 109, IPC in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Banswara on 23. 6. 83 alleging therein that Smt. Laxmi had solemnised second marriage with Bal Kishan on 4. 6. 83 according to Hindu customs and rites and the present accused-petitioners alongwith 14 others accused- persons had abetted the commission of the aforesaid offence. Learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of PW-1 Smt. Anshumala under Sec. 200, Cr. P. C. and PW 2-Deepak Kumar, PW-3 Mangilal and PW-4 Dilip kumar under Sec. 202, Cr. P. C. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offence on 7. 7. 83 and ordered to issue summons to all the accused-persons including on the present accused-petitioners. The summonses were served on the present accused-petitioners on 26. 9. 83 and since then they are regularly appearing before the trial court and after lapse of more than 10-1/2 years, the case is not progressing further due to non-appearance of rest of 14 accused-persons. It is important to mention that the original complaint was filed before the learned Munsif and Judl. Magistrate, Banswara on 23. 6. 83, which was registered by the court on 24. 6. 83 since then the aforesaid complaint is being transferred from one court to another and not at present it is pending before the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Gaddi. After expiry of about 10 years, the present accused- petitioners moved an application on 10. 6. 93 before the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Gaddi praying therein that they may be discharged from the offence mentioned above.
(3.) THE trial court by impugned order dated 9. 12. 1993 dismissed the. aforesaid application and refused to discharge the petitioners from the offence under Sec. 494/109, IPC. Being aggrieved of the impugned order dated 9. 12. 93 passed by the learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate aforesaid the present accused-petitioners had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. on the ground, inter alia, that prolonged litigation before the trial court amounts to abuse of process of the court and also in utter violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India according to which the present accused- petitioners are entitled to have speedy trial. According to argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for an early investigation and for a speedy and fair trial. According to Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners, if the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are followed in their letter spirit, there would be little room for any grievance. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the case is still pending in the trial court for appearance of some of the accused-persons and no effective steps have been taken by the trial court to commence the trial. In reply to the aforesaid argument, Mr. Himmata Ram Panwar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State invited my attention towards a decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R. S. Nayak. (1 ). According to the learned Public Prosecutor, in Abdul Rehman Antulay's case (supra), the Apex Court had formulated certain norms, so that, the accused-persons may not be denied of their right to speedy trial. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the case of the present accused-petitioners are not covered within the purvies of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, therefore the present petition is liable to be dismissed. ;