IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.685 of 1998 RAMASHISH RAUT Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 4 26.8.2010 The instant writ application is directed against the order dated 7.9.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge XII, Patna in Criminal Revision No.907 of 1989 affirming the order dated 5.10.1989 whereby cognizance of the offence under sections 337, 341, 426 of the Penal Code has been taken and the petitioner was summoned to face trial in Complaint Case No.82(C)/1985. It is alleged by respondent no.2 that on 20.1.1985 while he was putting pillar on his land, the petitioner armed with Lathi and pistol restrained him from working and on his protest, the petitioner fired upon him but some how he escaped. It is further alleged that he had suffered a damage of Rs.100/-. The petitioner submits that against the order taking cognizance, he filed Criminal Revision No.101 of 1986/20 of 1987, which was heard and disposed of by order dated 20.4.1987 by the Additional District Judge XIII, Patna by which he has set aside the order taking cognizance and issuance of summons against him finding the case to be of a civil nature. He remanded the matter back to the learned court below. However, the learned Magistrate on the same facts again took cognizance and issued summons by order dated 5.10.1989. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred Cr.Revision No.907/89 which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional 2 KHAN District & Sessions Judge XII, Patna by order dated 7.9.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute if any is of civil nature and the maximum punishment under any of these provisions is six months. He further submits that a suit was also filed in respect of the issue in question and prosecution can be quashed on ground of prolonged delay in disposal of the case. From perusal of the records, it appears that the dispute is one of civil nature. Besides this, the offence is of trivial nature which does not even carry punishment beyond the period of six months. Further more, 25 years have passed since the filing of the case. An accused has right to speedy trial, which is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, I find that continuance of the proceeding would be an abuse of the process of the court. In the circumstances, the impugned prosecution against the petitioner arising out of Complaint Case No.82(C)/1985 as well as order taking cognizance dated 5.10.1998 and order dated 7.9.1998 passed in Cr. Revision No.907 of 1989 affirming the same are quashed. In the result, this application is allowed but with no order as to costs. (S.P.Singh,J)