ORDER Relying upon the decision in D.R. Devarajan v. State , 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 77 in which it is held that the long delay in investigation covering 9 years and odd caused prejudice to the accused and consequently, the proceedings are liable to quashed, the petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.482 , Crl. P.C. seeking to quash the present proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.528 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Trichy, which was taken on file for the offences under Secs.468 , 471 , 465 , 409, I.P.C. 2. Mr. Venkataraman, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the alleged offences took place in the year 1986 and through departmental action, he was suspended from service and subsequently, as per the order of the Tribunal, he was reinstated into service and only two years thereafter, a complaint was registered against him by the respondent-police in the year 1988 and after 9 years thereafter, the charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner in the year 1997 and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. It is also contended that the delay of 2 years from 1986 to 1988 in lodging the F.I.R. and of 9 years from 1988 to 1997 in filing the charge-sheet has not been explained and even after 1997, the summon has not been served on the petitioner and as such, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and consequently, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 4. The learned Government Advocate, on the strength of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, would submit that the offence took place in the year 1986 and the complaint was given in the year 1988 immediately on the decision taken by the department to give complaint against the petitioner. The allegations in the F.I.R. are that the petitioner, while working as Junior Assistant in the Sub Treasury Office, Trichy, collected motor vehicle tax from various persons and made false entries in the R.C. books and made alteration in the challans as if he paid the amount into the Treasury, but he paid only lesser amount and as such, he committed forgery, falsification of records and misappropriation. Against that, the investigation was conducted and all the forged documents were periodically sent to the opinion of the Hand Writing Expert through the trial Court and since lot of documents were recovered from various departments and also more than 30 witnesses were examined, the respondent was able to finish the investigation in the year 1997 and thereafter, he filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner and as such, it cannot be contended that there is huge and unexplained delay in filing the charge-sheet. 5. Moreover, he would cite the decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran 1990 Crl. L.J. 1306 in which the Supreme Court would hold that mere inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation cannot be the ground for quashing the proceedings. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel on either side. 7. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would refer about so many proceedings before the Tribunal from where the petitioner was able to get reinstatement order and consequently, the petitioner was subjected to mental torture for all these years, the said contention cannot be of any use to conclude that the proceedings arising out of the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed. 8. It is true that this Court in D.R. Devarajan v. State, 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 77 quashed the proceedings on the ground of delay of 12 years. In that case, this Court found that the explanation given by the police for the delay in the investigation was not acceptable. 9. That is not the case here. This is a case where it is alleged that the petitioner, while working as Junior Assistant in the Sub Treasury, collected various amounts from various persons as motor vehicle tax and created false documents and made false entries as if the said amount had been deposited into the Treasury. 10. It is also alleged in the charge-sheet that he made false entries in the concerned R.C. books of the individuals relating to their respective vehicles, as if the road tax were paid and also false entries in the challans. 11. Under those circumstances, it is not a mere case of misappropriation of amount of Rs.1,655. But, it is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner, while working as Junior Assistant in the Sub Treasury, committed forgery and created false records. 11. Under those circumstances, it is not a mere case of misappropriation of amount of Rs.1,655. But, it is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner, while working as Junior Assistant in the Sub Treasury, committed forgery and created false records. This is a serious offence. 12. As held by the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.V. Pavithran , 1990 Crl. L.J. 1306 the inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. 13. The determination of the question whether the accused has been deprived would depend on various factors including whether such delay was unreasonably long or caused deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the accused or whether such delay was inevitable in the nature of things or whether it was due to the dilatory tactics adopted by the accused. The Court, in addition, has to consider whether such delay on the part of the investigating agency has caused grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused. 14. In the light of the above observation of the Supreme Court, I am not able to hold that in this case, the delay was caused by the investigating agency deliberately or intentionally to hamper the defence of the accused. 15. On the other hand, on perusal of the trial Court records, which have been summoned by this Court, would show that there are various correspondence between the investigating officer and the Hand Writing Exert through the trial Court from 1988 onwards. On the requisition of the Investigating Officer, the trial Court sent various letters to the Hand Writing Experts in the year 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993 etc. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the delay has been deliberately caused to affect the defence of the accused. 16. Moreover, it is specifically stated in the counter that the opinion of the Hand Writing Experts and all the other documents were received only in the year 1994 and subsequently, the investigation was conducted and ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed on 23.10.1997. 17. In view of the above fact situation, I am not able to persuade myself to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the proceedings and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 17. In view of the above fact situation, I am not able to persuade myself to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to quash the proceedings and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Crl.M.P.No.10997 of 1999 is closed. 18. Since the case relates to the F.I.R. of the year 1988, the trial Court is directed to give top priority to this case and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to send back the records to the trial Court forthwith. B.S.-----Petition dismissed.