The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amounted to abuse of the process of the court.

1. - These three petitions U/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `the Cr.P.C.') seek the same relief of getting quashed the criminal proceedings in criminal case Nos. 156 of 1983 to 160 of 1983 State v. Ram Gopal and Ors. U/ss. 420, 465, 466, 467 and 468 r.w. Sec. 120B I.P.C. pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur. These were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The factual matrix which makes the common basis for the prayer made by the petitioners is as under:

During the years 1969 and 1970 Lal Chand and Jai Singh petitioners were working as Store-Keepers and Dwarka Prasad petitioner as Store-Munshi in the Building and Roads (B&R) Section of the Public Works Department (P.W.D.) Distt. Division, Jaipur. Co-accused Ram Gopal, who is a co-accused alongwith the petitioners in the five cases mentioned above but who dies not appear to have filed any similar petition, was working for M/s. Madhu, S.T.S. Samiti Ltd., Jaipur Constructors. Instances of delivery of excess material from the stores of the B&R Distt. Division, Jaipur by the petitioners to the said contractors through Ram Gopal co-accused came to the notice of the authorities concerned. On enquiry of the matters the present petitioners were allegedly found responsible for making delivery of excess material to the aforesaid contractors by making false entries in the relevant record and thus to have cheated the department. Besides taking departmental action of suspending them, Sh. H.P. Kuchhal, the then Executive Engineer (B&R), Distt. Division, Jaipur sent a written report dated 23.7.70 to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Jaipur for registering a criminal case against the petitioners and Ram Gopal and investigate the same. At the said police station crime No. 134 for offences U/ss. 420, 465, 466, 467, 471 r.w. Sec. 120B IPC was registered on 28.7.70. After investigation, the police filed on 4.2.76 five separate charge-sheets numbered 137B, 137E, 137A, 137 and 137D relevant to criminal case Nos. 156, 157, 158, 159 and 160 of 1983 respectively against the present petitioners and Ram Gopal, aforementioned. The learned Magistrate & framed charges on 15.10.1987 and thereafter consolidated the cases on 4.10.1989 for the purpose of recording evidence. The prosecution could examine their first witness, Sh. H.R Kuchhal only on 2.3.1990 and since then ail the five cases are pending till date for enabling the prosecution to produce and examine their witnesses. It may be mentioned that in each case a list of 13 to 18 witnesses had been filed by the prosecution. Dwarka Prasad and Jai Singh petitioners are reported to have since retired from service.

3. Relying heavily on Supreme Courts decision in the case of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (AIR 1992 SC 1701) and this courts decision in Chotey Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan (1992 RCC 167) Mr. D.C. Swami, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that the protracted trial of the petitioner infringes their fundamental right to speedy trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the proceedings pending against the petitioners in the five case amount to abuse of the process of the court which is required to be prevented by quashing such proceedings. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, urged that no time limit for completion of the criminal proceedings may be drawn and each case is to be decided on its own facts having regard to the nature of the offence involved therein. It was submitted that in the cases pending against the petitioners the offences relating to the cheating of the state employer and falsification of the public documents were involved and therefore, the proceedings be not quashed on the sole ground of delayed trial,

4. After having considered the rival submission and on making close study of the proceedings held in the cases against the petitioners by the authori