K.L. Shrivastava, J.

1. By this application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Code') the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 939/79 pending in the Court of the IInd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore.

2. Circumstances giving rise to the petition are these. On the F.I.R. lodged on 17-1-1978 by Shri S.P. Mishra the then D.I.G. Police. Indore, a crime under Sections 506 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 61 of the Police Act was registered against the petitioner. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 10-1-1978 to the informant which constituted the offences in question.

3. At the conclusion of the investigation, the police prosecuted the petitioner by filing a challan on 21-8-1978. Charges were framed against him on 20-9-1979 and by the end of 1980 only one witness had been examined and further proceeding in the case has been held-up for want of report of the handwriting expert.

4. The petitioner had earlier also moved an application under Section 482 of the Code and on that Misc. Cr. Case No. 1976/87, this Court had on 18-12-1987 ordered that the connected case be disposed of by the end of March 1988.

5. The contention of the petitioner's learned counsel is that the continuance of the proceedings is violative of the fundamental right of speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. The contention of the learned counsel for the State is that the petition deserves dismissal.

7. The point for consideration is whether the petition deserves to be allowed.

8. Article 21 of the Constitution of India reads thus:

No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

9. Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and delay constitutes denial of it. In the decision in Hussainara Khatoon's case. AIR 1979 SC 1310 the Apex Court of the country, while interpreting Article 21 of the Constitution has pointed out that no procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as reasonable, fair or just and it would fall foul of Article 21. Reasonably expeditious trial is thus an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. Reference in this connection may also be made to the decision in Sheels Barse's case, 1986 C.Cr.J. (SC) 249 wherein it has been held that the fundamental right of speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and that the consequence of violation of the fundamental right to speedy trial implicit in Article 21 would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of the fundamental right The decision in Gajraj Singh's case, 1988 JLJ 483 may also be usefully perused.

10. Courts exist for doing justice between the contending parties. It is no doubt in the interest of the society that guilty persons are brought to book but they have also to ensure that those accused are not subjected to prolonged periods of anxiety. In the decision in Madheshwardhari's case, 1986 Cri.L.J. 1771 : AIR 1980 Pat 324 it has been pointed out that in all criminal prosecutions the right to speedy public trial which has a wide amplitude, is now inalienable fundamental right of the citizen under Article 21 and is available in all criminal prosecutions irrespective of the nature of the offence involved.

11. As pointed out in the decision in Marietta Gandhi's case, AIR 1978 SC 597 the law depriving a person of his personal liberty must also be tested with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution which is in these words:

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

The principle of reasonableness is an essential element of the equality or non-arbitrariness and pervades Article 14. Therefore, the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must also answer the