Right to speedy trial did not justify quashing where delay was shared and trial was already substantially progressed.

Criminal proceedings were not quashed for alleged violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, because the long pendency was not attributable solely to the prosecution and the petitioner had also contributed to delay by obtaining stay orders and remaining absent on several occasions. The court noted that a substantial number of witnesses had already been examined, so the case had not reached the point where the prosecution could be treated as persecution justifying termination under Section 482 CrPC. Instead of ending the proceedings, the trial court was directed to complete the trial expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed on the ground of delay and alleged violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The proceedings had been pending for a long period, but the record showed that the prosecution had already examined a substantial number of witnesses and that the delay was not attributable solely to the prosecution. The petitioner had also contributed to the delay, including by obtaining stay and by remaining absent on several occasions. In these circumstances, the case could not be treated as one where the prosecution had become a persecution so as to justify quashing at that stage. The appropriate course was to secure expeditious completion of the trial rather than terminate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The request to quash the proceedings was rejected, and the petition was dismissed, while directing the trial court to complete the trial expeditiously.

---