Inordinate delay in a nascent criminal complaint justified quashing of proceedings without reaching the merits.

An inordinate and unexplained delay in a criminal complaint that had remained at a nascent stage for more than 22 years justified quashing of the proceedings without examination of the merits. The Court treated the prolonged pendency, with no meaningful progress since 1994, as sufficient cause to bring the matter to an end and terminated the complaint in favour of the petitioners. The proceedings did not survive, and the special leave petitions were disposed of on the basis of the quashing relief and the ancillary payment arrangement directed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the pending complaint, which had remained at a nascent stage for more than 22 years, should be quashed on account of inordinate delay.

Analysis: The complaint had been pending since 1994 and had not progressed beyond an initial stage. Without entering into the merits of the rival contentions, the Court treated the prolonged pendency as a sufficient ground to bring the matter to an end and granted relief by quashing the complaint, while also directing a welfare contribution by the company concerned.

Conclusion: The complaint was quashed and the proceedings were terminated in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The criminal complaint did not survive and the special leave petitions were disposed of on the basis of the quashing relief and the ancillary payment arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: Inordinate and unexplained pendency of a complaint at a nascent stage may justify quashing of the proceedings without examination of the merits.

---