The right to a speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed and must be upheld, with courts required to take proactive measures to prevent undue delays in criminal proceedings.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for quashment of the Criminal Case which has been initiated against the him vide Crime No.84/2006 registered at Police Station Golbazar, Raipur for the offence under S.420, S.468 & S.471 IPC.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is pending for consideration before the Trial Court for more than 10 years. Charges were framed in the present case as early as on 11.05.2010 and even after more than 6 years after framing of charge, the prosecution has not been able to examine a single witness before the Court below. Thus, prayed for quashing of the entire criminal case as the petitioner who is a lecturer in the Government Higher Secondary School, Banarsi, Arang, District Raipuris unnecessarily is facing the trauma of trial for more than 10 years. Counsel for the petitioner prays that in the alternative the Court below may be directed for an expeditious trial.

3. Per contra, State counsel submits that it is a case where on many occasions the matter was adjourned at the petitioner's instance and therefore, the prosecution alone cannot be blamed for the pendency of the case for long.

4. Considering the fact that the offence pertains to the year 2006 and charges were framed in the year 2010 i.e. more than six years back but till date a single witness has not been examined by the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that undoubtedly there is a serious lapse at the hands of the prosecution. It is highly improbable that for six years the prosecution was not able to get a single evidence before the Court. It also forces this Court to presume that the prosecution is colluding with the accused in ensuring the witnesses do not appear. The prosecution is perhaps aiding the accused by delaying the evidence so that in the process, the witness on some grounds would not be available either by way of death or change of address etc. and which shall be beneficial to the accused. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka reported in 2002 (4) SCC 578 : AIR 2002 SC 1856, in paragraph - 29 has held as under:

'29. For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that in Common Cause case (I) (as modified in Common Cause (II)) and Raj Deo Sharma (I) and (II), the Court could not have prescribed periods of limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case or a criminal proceeding cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed followed by an order acquitting or discharging the accused. In conclusion we hold:
(1) the dictum in A.R. Antulay's case is correct and still holds the field.
(2) The propositions emerging from Art.21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay's case, adequately take care of right to speedy trial. We uphold and re - affirm the said propositions.
(3) The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay's case are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard and fast rules or to be applied like a strait - jacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact - situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made.
(4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time - limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Cause (I), Raj Deo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal courts are not obliged t