Judgment :- The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the First Information Report pending in Crime No.26 of 1995 on the file of the respondent police registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as Executive Officer Grade-III of Arulmigu Ekambareswarar Koil, Chettikuppam, Perambalur District and promoted as Executive Officer Grade-II in the year 1988 and posted at Tiruchengode Arthanathiswarar Temple. It is further submitted that thereafter, he was transferred to Arulmigu Uthamar Koil, Pitchandavar Koil village, Trichy District. The learned senior counsel further submits that a complaint was made against the then Executive Officer, in-charge of the said temple on 11.01.1995 for the alleged occurrence said to have taken place for the period from 01.02.1994 to 31.2.1994 for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is contended that the allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that while accounts were audited, in the audit report it was informed that a sum of Rs.1,77,942/-was misappropriated by creating fabricated documents. It is submitted that the petitioner is absolutely nothing to do with the alleged offence as he was not in-charge and responsible for writing the accounts in respect of the temple. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is to the effect that he has not properly supervised the maintenance of accounts in respect of the temple. It is contended that on the basis of the registration of the complaint, the petitioner was suspended and the order of suspension was challenged before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.4395 of 2002 and the same was allowed and as a result, the petitioner was reinstated in the service and as on date, he is working as Executive Officer-II, Sideswarar Samy Thirukoil, Kanajamalai, Salem District. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is now at the verge of retirement and except the pending First Information Report against him, he is having unblemished record in his service. 5. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is now at the verge of retirement and except the pending First Information Report against him, he is having unblemished record in his service. 5. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that the petitioner has made a representation to the concerned police authorities and as on date the fact remains that the police has not filed any final report. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made a representation to the Inspector of Police on 03.12.2007 and in the representation itself it was written by the respondent police to the effect that the First Information Report pending in Crime No.26 of 1995 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal code was transferred to Samayapuram Police Station on 30.08.1997. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been driven from pillar to post and he is not in a position to know about the fate of crime No.26 of 1995 registered against him. It is further contended that in view of the pendency of the First Information Report in this case, the petitioner has been put into great hardship and irreparable loss and he is not in a position to get retirement benefits at the verge of his retirement. 6. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that there is absolutely no progress in the pending First Information Report registered against the petitioner herein and till the date the petitioner has not received any communication from the police authorities. Therefore, it is contended that in view of the inordinate and unexplained delay and in view of the pendency of the First Information Report, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that he has received instruction from the respondent police to the effect that the case was already transferred to Samayapuram Police Station. It is further submitted that the Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station in turn informed that there is no such entry in respect of transfer of the case in Crime No.26 of 1995, registered against the petitioner from Srirangam Police Station to Samayapuram Police Station. It is also submitted that the Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station sought for time in this matter. 8. It is also submitted that the Inspector of Police, Samayapuram Police Station sought for time in this matter. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and also perused the materials available on record including the impugned First Information Report. 9. This is an unfortunate case, wherein the First Information Report was simply registered in Crime No.26 of 1995 and the same was kept under the cold storage without any progress and even the fate of the First Information Report has not known either to the petitioner or to the respondent police. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is working as Executive Engineer Grade-II, Sideswarar Samy Thirukoil, Kanajamalai, Salem District and he is now at the verge of retirement. It is very curious and unfortunate to note that the respondent Police has come forward with a categorical version to the effect that an endorsement has been made in the representation of the petitioner dated 03.12.2007 to the effect that the case was transferred to Samayapuram Police Station as early as on 30.08.1997. But the fact remains that the records available at Samayapuram Police Station does not reflect about the transfer of Crime No.26 of 1995 from the Srirangam Police Station. Further, the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE by his communication dated 04.12.2007 in Na.Ka.No.1529/2006 A-2, directed the Sub Inspector of Police, Samayapuram to send a copy the charge sheet filed in Crime No.26 of 2005 registered against the petitioner herein. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kollidam Police Station in turn addressed a letter dated 05.12.2007 to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE stating that the verification of records available at Kollidam Police Station, which comes within the Samayapuram Circle does not disclose about the transfer of case in Crime No.26 of 1995 from the file of Srirangam Police Station. 10. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kollidam Police Station in turn addressed a letter dated 05.12.2007 to the Joint Commissioner, HR & CE stating that the verification of records available at Kollidam Police Station, which comes within the Samayapuram Circle does not disclose about the transfer of case in Crime No.26 of 1995 from the file of Srirangam Police Station. 10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on the other hand fairly submitted that the Government Advocate received the instruction from the respondent Police namely Srirangam Police Station to the effect that the case was already transferred to Samayapuram Police Station and the Inspector of Police, Samayapuram in turn has given instructions to the Government Advocate to the effect that the records available in Samayapuram Police Station does not disclose about the pendency of Crime No.26 of 1995 which was transferred from Srirangam Police Station and further the Inspector of Police, Samayapuram requested the Government Advocate for further time. 11. The above said sequences of events makes it crystal clear that there is absolutely no progress in respect of crime No.26 of 1995 registered against the petitioner herein by the respondent/Sub Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Trichirapalli, Srirangam District. This Court is of the view that this case is very unfortunate and curious to note neither the respondent police nor the Inspector of Police, Kollidam Police Station, Samayapuram Circle were not in a position to state anything about the fate of Crime No.26 of 1995 registered against the petitioner herein. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no justification for keeping the petitioner under the threat of the alleged pendency of the First Information Report registered in Crime No.26 of 1995 by the respondent police. 12. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in (2007) 1 MLJ (Crl)523 (K. Krishnasingh V. State rep.by Inspector of Police), in which, this Court placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court reported in (2000) CCR 141(SC) (Motilal Saraf V.State of Jammu & Kashmir IV. The Honourable Apex Court in the said decision held as follows: "49. It is the bounden duty of the Court and the prosecution to prevent unreasonable delay. 50. The Honourable Apex Court in the said decision held as follows: "49. It is the bounden duty of the Court and the prosecution to prevent unreasonable delay. 50. The purpose of right to a speedy trial is intended to avoid oppression and prevent delay by imposing on the Courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch. 51. In order to make the administration of criminal justice effective, vibrant and meaningful, the Union of India, the State Governments, and all concerned authorities must taken necessary steps immediately so that the important constitutional right of the accused of a speedy trial does not remain only on papers or is a mere formality. 52. In the instant case not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution in the last twenty six years without there being any lapse on behalf of the appellant. Permitting the State to continue with the prosecution and trial any further would be total abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the criminal proceedings are quashed." In the decision cited supra, the Honourable Apex Court has categorically held that inordinate delay in conducting trial, vitiates the entire trial proceedings and the same would amount to total abuse of process of law and consequently the criminal proceedings are quashed. 13. The facts of the above said case is to the effect that not even a single witness has been examined. But as far as the instant case is concerned, there is no progress even in respect of the alleged First Information Report in Crime No.26 of 1995 against the petitioner herein. Therefore this Court is of the considered view that the principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and in order to secure the ends of justice and also in order to prevent the abuse of process of law, this Court is left with no other alternative, except to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.26 of 1995 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Srirangam, Trichirapalli District for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. This criminal original petition is ordered accordingly.