Judgment :- 1. Petitioner entered service in the police department as Sub Inspector in 1962. He was promoted as Circle Inspector in 1970. In 1976 he became Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was awarded senior grade in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police in 1987. Against him a First Information Report was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court Ernakulam, a copy of which is marked as Annexure-D. The F.I.R. dated 22-4-1983 makes mention of offence u/s.420 IPC and S.12(1)(b) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The case is being investigated by the Crime Branch C.I.D., Trivandrum as crime 216/CR/83. Even-after the lapse of more than six years, no final report has been filed before court. On account of the long pendency of this proceeding, petitioner alleges that his future prospects in service are doomed. He, therefore, prays for quashing the complaint on various grounds. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes this application. He made available to court the entire case diary relating to the case registered against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch C.I.D., Head Quarters, Trivandrum, has filed a counter affidavit opposing the petitioner's application. In the counter affidavit explanation is given for non-completion of the investigation till date. For a proper understanding of it, I read the same: "The investigation has not been completed for various reasons. The investigation abroad may also necessary in this case to collect the details and duration of employment undertaken by the petitioner in Saudi Arabia for which sanction has been obtained from the State Government. Moreover, further formalities also have to be completed to proceed to a foreign country to pursue investigation by the officer authorised in this behalf. There is no delay in investigation as alleged by the petitioner." According to the counter affidavit the investigation abroad was necessitated on account of the petitioner taking up employment in Jeddah. Prosecution would allege that petitioner went to Jeddah using the passport obtained from Bombay and took up employment there. He was not granted any permission to take up employment elsewhere. These activities, it is contended, will amount to cheating punishable under S.420 IPC. 3. The main offence alleged against the petitioner are those u/s.420 IPC and u/s.12(1)(b) of the Act. Prosecution would allege that petitioner went to Jeddah using the passport obtained from Bombay and took up employment there. He was not granted any permission to take up employment elsewhere. These activities, it is contended, will amount to cheating punishable under S.420 IPC. 3. The main offence alleged against the petitioner are those u/s.420 IPC and u/s.12(1)(b) of the Act. S.12(1)(b) of the Act states: 12(1) "Whoever--(a) xx xx xx (b) Knowingly furnishes any false information or suppresses any material information with a view to obtaining a passport or travel document under this Act or without lawful authority alter or attempts to alter or causes to alter the entries made in a passport or travel document; or (c) xx xx xx (d) xx xx xx (e) xx xx xx shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both." This offence is alleged to have been committed by the petitioner on account of his having taken passport No.P.187495 on 3-5-1979 from the Passport Office, Bombay, before the expiry of the former Passport No:077015 dated 12-6-1978 issued from the Passport Office, Ernakulam. The passport issued from the Passport Office, Ernakulam, was valid up to 12-6-1979. During the validity of that passport, it is alleged, petitioner obtained another passport from the Passport Office, Bombay, on 3-5-1979. In the passport given from the Ernakulam Office, petitioner's name is written as PULIMOOTTIL KOSHY OOMMEN S/O. (late) P.M. Koshy. The visible distinguishing mark given in that passport is "scar on the nose". In the passport given by the Bombay Office the name of bearer is shown as OOMMEN KOSHY S/o. late Thampan having visible distinguishing mark of mole on neck. The passport issued by the Ernakulam office contains the signature of Pulimoottil Koshy Oommen below the photograph. That signature is having striking similarity with his signature in the Vakalath form filed before this court. The passport issued from the Bombay Office does not contain the signature of the bearer beneath the photograph. (The above details are seen from the photostat copies of the passports seen in the case diary). 4. Page 69 of the case diary is the photo copy of the application submitted before the Bombay Passport Office on 30th April, 1979, for new passport. (The above details are seen from the photostat copies of the passports seen in the case diary). 4. Page 69 of the case diary is the photo copy of the application submitted before the Bombay Passport Office on 30th April, 1979, for new passport. The signature of the applicant seen in that photostat copy is having nothing in common with the petitioner's signature seen in the Vakalath form. Verification certificate in that application form is blank. None has signed the same. In that application form, father's name is given as 'late Thampan'. There is nothing in the case diary to show that that application was in fact filed by the petitioner. At page 577 of the case diary we come across the factual report filed by Sri. J. Alexander, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Team-II, Crime Branch C.I.D., Trivandrum. In that report the officer opined: "The original application presented by Sri. Oommen Koshy was recovered from passport office, Bombay. The admitted handwriting and signature of Sri. Oommen Koshy are apparently different from that appearing in the application form." After giving further details he concludes the report stating: "In the absence of concrete and convincing documentary evidence to prove the case before the court, it is requested that sanction may kindly be accorded to treat this case as U.N. and to send, report to the court accordingly. Eventhough, there is no sufficient evidence to prosecute Sri. Oommen Koshy, I am of opinion that there is sufficient evidence to proceed against him departmentally. The photostat copy of both the passports, coupled with other evidences like Sri Oommen Koshy being on leave and away to Bombay during the relevant period and the oral evidence of the witnesses are sufficient to prove that he had obtained the 2nd passport and went to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia and sought employment there. Therefore the scope for taking disciplinary action against him can be examined." The above report is dated 21-7-1988. No new evidence or material is seen to have been detected by the investigating agency. But at page 603 Dr.P.J. Alexander I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Crimes, Trivandrum, has inter alia minuted: "Investigation in this case is not yet completed: What further investigation is contemplated is not discernible from the records produced before court. 5. No new evidence or material is seen to have been detected by the investigating agency. But at page 603 Dr.P.J. Alexander I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Crimes, Trivandrum, has inter alia minuted: "Investigation in this case is not yet completed: What further investigation is contemplated is not discernible from the records produced before court. 5. Under S.12(1)(b) of the Act which is extracted above, the maximum punishment that can be awarded to the petitioner in case the offence is proved is imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months. Under S.468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the period of limitation for such offence for the court to take cognisance of is one year. Offence u/s.12(1)(b)of the Act is stated to have been committed on 3-5-1979. Even in 1989 the investigation has not been completed. There is no proper explanation for this inordinate delay in completing the investigation of the offence under the Act. Offence u/s.420 IPC is also stated to have been committed by the petitioner. The cheating alleged to have been committed for invoking 420 IPC as seen from the case diary is false representation made by petitioner to the Passport Office, Bombay, for getting a second passport and in taking up employment in some company in Saudi Arabia or in Jeddah. It was not urged before me by the learned Public Prosecutor that the representation to the Passport Officer in getting the alleged 2nd passport will constitute cheating as defined in S.415 of the I.P.C. Utilising that passport if the petitioner had gone to Jeddah and took up employment there, that will also not constitute cheating. It is not seen from the case diary that the petitioner deceived any person or fraudulently induced anyone to deliver any property to him so as to attract S.420 IPC. No specific act of cheating is alleged against the petitioner. Presumably S.420 IPC is included in the F.I.R. only as an attempt to get over the bar of limitation. It has been so done with mala fides. 6. As stated earlier, the offence is committed as far back as in May, 1979. More than ten years have lapsed. This long delay in completing the investigation is not explained. Pendency of this investigation, as a Democlis sword, is a threat to the petitioner's prospects in service. It has been so done with mala fides. 6. As stated earlier, the offence is committed as far back as in May, 1979. More than ten years have lapsed. This long delay in completing the investigation is not explained. Pendency of this investigation, as a Democlis sword, is a threat to the petitioner's prospects in service. His rights as an ordinary citizen conferred on him on account of lapse of period of limitation cannot be allowed to be defeated. Having regard to the nature of the offence this enormous delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution for more than 10 years is a matter to be deprecated. As stated by the Supreme Court in Srinivas Gopal v. Arunachal Pradesh (1988 (4) SCC 36) quick justice is a sine qua non of Art.21 of the Constitution. Keeping a person in suspended animation for more than 10 years without any cause cannot be within the spirit of procedure established by law. Inordinate delay in investigation of not so grave an offence has now been recognised as a sufficient cause for quashing the proceedings. 7. The materials now brought out from the case diary do not disclose an offence. There is no material to conclude, even prima facie, that the petitioner committed any offence under the Act or under S.420 IPC. Even if the offence under the Act as alleged had been committed, the cognisance of the same cannot now be taken on account of it having been hopelessly barred by limitation. In such a situation, no investigation can normally be permitted. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book as expeditiously as possible and must be punished for the same. This does not mean that the investigation can be permitted to continue for any length of time as in this case. When on the materials placed before court, it comes to the conclusion that no purpose will be served by allowing the investigation to continue, it will be the duty of the court to interfere with such investigation and to stop the same to prevent any kind of uncalled for and unnecessary harassment to the individual. In the circumstances detailed above, the investigation which started on the filing of the F.I.R. must be quashed. In the circumstances detailed above, the investigation which started on the filing of the F.I.R. must be quashed. Further, on examination of the entire evidence so far collected by the investigating agency, I am extremely doubtful whether the trial before court will result in conviction. When in the special circumstances of the cases if the chance of conviction is bleak, then also this court is justified in quashing the proceedings even at the preliminary stage. 8. Yet another aspect remains to be considered. Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials. S.177 of the Code provides that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The case diary does not bring out any circumstance warranting the conclusion that any part of the offence was committed within the local jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam. Under S.156 of the Code, a police officer can investigate any cognisable offence which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. The Central Bureau of Investigation which investigates the crime against the petitioner has got state-wide jurisdiction. But that investigation must be in relation to some offence which a court under S.177 of the Code is entitled to inquire into or try. The offence now alleged against the petitioner is that he obtained a second passport from the Bombay Passport Office. It is also contended that he went abroad for taking up employment there by using that passport. These allegations do not show that any part of the activities constituting the offence took part within the local limits of the Court at Ernakulam or for that matter within the limits of any court in this State. As no part of the offence was committed within the jurisdictional limits of any of the courts in Kerala, the investigation of the case against the petitioner is un-warranted. If such an investigation is allowed to continue, it will result in mis-carriage of justice and will be an abuse of process of court. In view of what has been stated above, I allow this petition and quash the entire proceedings in Crime 216/CR/83 of the Crime Branch C.I.D., Trivandrum.