JUDGMENT V. K. Mehrotra, J.—Prem Singh, the first applicant, is a partner in firm M/s. Mohar Singh Prem Singh, the second applicant in this Criminal Revision Petition No. 146 of 1988. The petition has been filed under sections 397/401 read with section 482, Cr. P. C and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was presented in the Court on December 19, 1988. The prayer in the petition is that the charges, which have been framed against the applicants in Case No. 7-N/7 of 1985, (State v. Prem Singh and others) by the learned Special Judge, Solan, on September 29, 1988, be quashed. 2. The charges framed against Prem Singh, are, for offences under section 42 of the Indian Forest Act; sections 120, 379, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Charges under the provisions of sections 379, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B, I. P. C. have been framed against the second applicant, firm M/s. Mohar Singh Prem Singh, through its partner, Prem Singh. 3. M/s. Prem Singh Mohar Singh are forest lessees. A First Information Report (No, 58 of 1977) was lodged on September 25, 1977, at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmur, for the offences aforesaid alleged to have been committed between March 31, 1976, and January 21, 1977. After investigation, a challan, which was prepared on September 20, 1982, was presented in the Court of the Special Judge on September 24, 1985. 4. On March 24, 1989, this Court directed that an affidavit be filed by the respondent-State indicating therein the cause of delay in the completion of the investigation. An affidavit, sworn by the Superintendent of Police, C. I. D (Crime) H. P. Simla on April 3, 1989, has been filed through Shri M. L. Chauhan, the learned Assistant Advocate General. The affidavit discloses that after the First Information Report No. 58 of 1977 was lodged, a case was registered on September 25, 1977, under the aforesaid sections read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for illicit felling of trees from Government Forest in a large number of villages of Rajgarh Forest Division. The areas were subjected to demarcation by Revenue and Forest Departments from September 30, 1977 to October 16, 1977, where after it was found that M/s. Prem Singh Mohar Singh had illicitly felled a large number of trees from Government Forest. The areas were subjected to demarcation by Revenue and Forest Departments from September 30, 1977 to October 16, 1977, where after it was found that M/s. Prem Singh Mohar Singh had illicitly felled a large number of trees from Government Forest. The documents relating to the alleged illicit felling from Government reserved forests were seized from different places and timber was also recovered from different places between October 1977 and October 1979. Examination of voluminous records was involved. Forged documents, said to have been prepared by some of the officials, who are also accused in the case, were sent to the Finger Print Bureau for examination in November 1978. After receipt of the expert opinion, specimen handwritings and signatures of the various persons concerned were obtained and were sent, along with the Questioned Documents, to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents on August 29, 1979. A report was received on January 10, 1980, from him. Since the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents asked for more specimen/admitted signatures etc., they were obtained and the documents were sent again to him in February, 1980. Ultimately, on June 9, 1980, the opinion of the Government Examiner was received. 5. Different persons, according to the affidavit aforesaid, were examined with regard to their handwriting and other relevant evidence was collected from different places and the chalian was finally prepared on September 20, 1982. The Public Prosecutor had raised certain observations about it which were attended to and in July 1983 a final challan was drawn up. The case was then referred to various Revenue and Forest authorities (mentioned in the affidavit) for obtaining sanction for the prosecution in respect of the accused Government officials. Letters containing sanction were received between August 1983 and August 1984. The case involved voluminous record. Copies thereof were prepared for handing over to thirty-one accused persons which took about a year. Thereafter, the challan was presented in Court on September 24, 1985. 6. The same affidavit also discloses that out of a total number of 183 prosecution witnesses, 163 had already been examined in Court and dates for examining the remaining witnesses had also been fixed before the Special Judge. 7. Some of these witnesses have, according to the statement made by counsel for the parties in Court, now also been examined. 8. Shri A. K. Goel has appeared for the two applicants. 7. Some of these witnesses have, according to the statement made by counsel for the parties in Court, now also been examined. 8. Shri A. K. Goel has appeared for the two applicants. His basic submission has been that the offences were alleged to have been committed in the years 1975, 1976 and 1977. A period of almost 11 years has elapsed since then. The investigation took nearly 8 years for completion. In these circumstances, it would not be just and proper to permit the trial to go on and that the continuance of the trial, in relation to the two applicants, was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. 9. Commenting upon the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police, C. I. D (Crime), H. P., dated April 3, 1989, Shri Goel urged that it did not show that the applicants were, in any manner, instrumental in the delay in the investigation or the filing of the charge-sheet before the Court. He has urged that if delay does not occur on account of the accused persons, they should not suffer by being brought to trial after an inordinately long period since the alleged commission of the offence by them. 10. Normally, it is true, that long delay in bringing an offender to trial may cause undue hardship to him and an accused should usually not be subjected to the harassment of a criminal trial after inordinate delay. However, the question can only be examined with reference to the facts of a case and no inflexible rule in that regard can be laid down. Neither has it been laid down in any decision. The nature of the alleged offence and the conduct of the Investigating or the Prosecuting Agency in completing the investigation and thereafter, bringing the offender before the Court for trial, are circumstances which have to be kept in mind by the Court in coming to a conclusion whether a particular trial should be permitted or not after lapse of a long period of time. 11. Shri Goel placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prithvi Raj and another v. State of Haryana, 1981 Cr LJ 984. 12. That was a case where the accused persons were charged under section 430 read with sections 114 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Shri Goel placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prithvi Raj and another v. State of Haryana, 1981 Cr LJ 984. 12. That was a case where the accused persons were charged under section 430 read with sections 114 and 189 of the Indian Penal Code. The maximum punishment for the offence, if proved, could be imprisonment up to five years. The investigation had been carried on in the case initially by a Sub-Inspector and then by an Inspector of the C. I. A. staff. Later on, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, himself investigated the case and found it to be false due to deficiency of evidence and recommended it for cancellation. The learned Magistrate, before whom the report for cancellation was put up, did not agree with the police report and directed them to conduct further investigation. The matter rested there for some time but investigation was restarted on an application moved by the Sub-Inspector who had initially made the investigation and had, in the mean time, retired from service. Ultimately, the challan was presented in Court again after a period of 11 years of the alleged commission of offence. The learned single Judge, before whom the matter came up through a petition under section 482, Cr. P. C held that: ".........To allow the criminal proceedings to continue further after a long lapse of time of about 11 years from the date of alleged commission of offence would, in my opinion, amount to permitting a Court proceeding to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and would not, at this stage, achieve any salutary public purpose. On the facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case, such continuance constitutes gross abuse of process of Court........." He quashed the proceedings. 13. B. N. Ganjoo v. State of H. P., ILR 1982 HP 327, was a case, decided by V. D. Misra, C- J. Ganjoo, who was a Senior Auditor in the office of the Account ant-General, submitted a false T. A. Bill in the month of April 1973 for a sum of Rs. 24. Departmental proceeding was held against him in respect of this T. A. Bill. However, the charge sheet was withdrawn by the Department in February 1976. 24. Departmental proceeding was held against him in respect of this T. A. Bill. However, the charge sheet was withdrawn by the Department in February 1976. Subsequently, in July 1977, a report was lodged with the Police and a case was registered against Ganjoo. The Police filed a charge sheet against him in the year 1980 under section 420 read with sections 511, 467 and 468, 1. P. C. Ganjoo approached this Court for the quashing of the proceeding. The learned Chief Justice feit that Ganjoo had already suffered a lot in terms of not only money but also in mental agony and humiliation for the petty offence. A sword of Damocles had been hanging over his head for a long time. He then observed (in paragraph 10 of the report) that: "Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I would exercise my inherent powers to quash the proceedings..." 14. Obviously, the offence was a petty one and the delay of over seven years had taken place before Ganjoo was brought to trial. 15. True it is, as observed by the Supreme Court in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, (in paragraph 6 of the report) that : "......There may be cases where it may be possible for the High Court to take the view that the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings against an accused person may amount to the abuse of the process of the court or that the quashing of the impugned proceedings would secure the ends of justice............" 16. It is equally true that the question, in ultimate analysis, depends upon the circumstances obtaining in a particular case. To borrow the words of the Supreme Court in R. P. Kapur : “............It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction,..........." 17. It is equally true that the question, in ultimate analysis, depends upon the circumstances obtaining in a particular case. To borrow the words of the Supreme Court in R. P. Kapur : “............It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction,..........." 17. Since the trial is proceeding before the Special Judge and the evidence on behalf of the prosecution has largely been examined, without saying anything further, for any observation made by this Court may prove prejudicial to the case of either party, I would refuse to quash the proceedings in the instant case wherein the allegation against the accused persons relates to illegal felling of a very large number of trees of the value of about seven lacs of rupees from vast areas of the reserved forests. Moreso, when, in the circumstances disclosed in the affidavit of the S. P. C. I. D. (Crime) Himachal Pradesh, it cannot be said that there has been any undue delay in investigating the case or presenting a charge sheet in Court. 18. The revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. -