JUDGMENT

OJHA, J. :— The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing of the proceedings in a case arising out of First Information Report No. 472 dated 3rd May, 1978 under S. 448, I.P.C. P. S. Moti Nagar pending in the Court of Shri S. P. Singh Choudhary, Additional Sessions Judge whereas the prayer in the miscellaneous petitions is for initiating contempt proceedings against (1) State through Administrator, Delhi Administration (2) Shri R. K. Sharma, Inspector General of Police, Goa, and (3) Shri Ajai Chadha, Deputy Commissioner of Police (West Zone), New Delhi. On these writ petitions and criminal Miscellaneous petitions notice was issued by this Court on 23rd August, 1988 confined to respondents 1 and 2.

2. The facts giving rise to these proceedings may be stated here in a nutshell. The petitioners are being prosecuted on the basis of the allegations made in the First Information Report referred to above in the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge. Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 359-362 of 1987 were filed by the petitioners before this Court for quashing all the proceedings in pursuance of the aforesaid First Information Report on various grounds. These writ petitions, however, were dismissed by this Court on 13th July, 1987 by the following order :-

"The writ petition is dismissed subject to the direction that the trial of the case will go on from day-to-day after the learned Addl. Sessions Judge fixes a date for commencement of the trial some time in the third week of August, 1987. The Prosecution Agency will take every step to summon every witnesses and have the case disposed of. If the copies of the documents have not been supplied to the accused so far they will be supplied forthwith."

3. The present writ petitions seem to have been filed on or about 23rd July, 1988 and the case of the petitioners is that in view of the order of this Court dated 13th July, 1987 the criminal case pending against them ought to have been decided near about 3rd week of August, 1987 and since not only the case had not been decided till the filing of the writ in framed, petitions even charge had not bee even though about 110 dates were fixed in before the case, the proceedings be Additional Sessions Judge in the case aforesaid deserve to be quashed.

4. In the criminal miscellaneous petitions for initiating proceedings for contempt the case of the petitioners is that since the prosecution agency had not taken the required steps to summon the witnesses as directed by this Court in its order dated 13th July, 1987 they are guilty of disobedience of the aforesaid order.

5. The writ petitions as well as the criminal miscellaneous petitions have been contested by the respondents. Their case is that the prosecution is not responsible for the delay in the disposal of the case after the order of this Court dated 13th July, 1987 nor has any of the respondents done any such thing for which proceedings for contempt may be initiated against him. As seen above, the petitioners had filed Writ Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 359-362 of 1987 for the quashing of the proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge on various grounds but the writ petitions were dismissed. That order has become final and consequently none of those grounds can be considered again to constitute the basis for quashing the proceedings. Even otherwise, in the present writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the delay after the order of this Court dated 13th July, 1987 in the earlier writ petitions.

6. The short question which, therefore, falls for our consideration is as to whether the proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge deserve to be quashed on account of the case not being disposed of after the order dated 13th July, 1987 and before the filing of these writ petitions. A copy of the running order sheet of the case from 23rd July, 1987 up to 19th August, 1988 has been filed on behalf of the respondents and we have been taken through the said order sheet. Ha