Judgment :- (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C, seeking for the relief’s as stated therein.) 1. This petition is filed, seeking for a direction to quash the first information report, registered by the Inspector of Police, Erode Town Police Station in Cr. No. 1776/1999 on 22.10.1999 based on the complaint received from one Gunasekaran for offence under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467, 471 and 120-B, IPC. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case has been registered during 1999 and after full-fledged investigation case has been referred as 'mistake of fact' on 29.9.2005. Subsequently, it was reopened on 16.11.2005 at the request of the complainant as well as the by order passed by the superior police officials. While conducting further investigation, the materials collected during the course of first investigation must be taken into account. Unless there are fresh materials to take up further investigation, the scope of further investigation is very limited. He further submits that the investigation of the case is pending from 1999 onwards and because of the pendency of the investigation for a long period, the petitioner is highly prejudiced. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case relates to the property to an extent of 85 cents, situated at Erode Town. One Vinaitheertha Ammal was enjoying the life estate, has executed a Will and Power of Attorney to and in favour of the petitioner herein. This execution of the Will, power of attorney and transfer of the property have been questioned by the de facto-complainant, resulting registration of the case. He also submits that initially on the strength of Will and power of attorney, revenue records have been transferred in the name of the petitioner and this was questioned by the complainant and after enquiry by the revenue officials, it has been set aside and aggrieved against that, an appeal has been preferred before the Special Commissioner and Land Administrative Commissioner, Chennai and the order passed by the Collector- was reversed, An interim order was passed on 12.7.1999 and final order was passed on 31.5.2000. 4. The learned counsel also submits that further investigation has been ordered on 16.11.2005. Even at the time of conclusion of the first investigation, all these factors have been taken into consideration and under such circumstances, there is no new scope for further investigation unless new materials are available. 4. The learned counsel also submits that further investigation has been ordered on 16.11.2005. Even at the time of conclusion of the first investigation, all these factors have been taken into consideration and under such circumstances, there is no new scope for further investigation unless new materials are available. He also submits that the investigation itself is erroneous and seeks to quash the proceedings. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/defacto-complainant submits that revenue records have been forged and at the time of initial investigation, certain documents have not been taken into consideration and patta of the land alone has been taken into consideration and there are several other documents to substantiate the offence and under such circumstances, further investigation is necessary and it has been rightly ordered. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that after taking up further investigation, several documents have been despatched to Forensic Lab for receiving expert's opinion and they have been received. He also submits that the materials collected during the investigation has been submitted before the Law Officers and opinion has also been received and under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the first information report is not maintainable. 7. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made. 8. Admittedly, during the course of further investigation, it appears that some additional materials have been collected including the opinion of the document's expert. Investigation of the case is pending from 1999. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that they have concluded the investigation. I find it is inappropriate to interfere with the investigation especially when there is a promise from the prosecution that they are going to file a final report shortly. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to complete the formalities and file a final report within a period of two months from today. 10. With the above direction, the petition is closed. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P. is closed.