Judgment :- 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed the Crl.O.P.No.21943 of 2007 on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner narrated the facts of the case in the above said Crl.O.P.No.21943 of 2007. 2. The petitioner was ranked in the complaint in C.C.No.22 of 2006 as A2. The petitioner further alleged that the respondent/ complaint has filed a charge sheet against him and also one John in C.C.No.22 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w. 406 r/w. 34 IPC. The petitioner further alleged that he belonged to a reputed family and he was requested by the land owners to sell their landed properties. Accordingly he functioned as middle man for the said land transaction. For the said land transaction, the first accused issued demand drafts in favour of the second accused. The same was distributed to the land owners ie., his role as alleged by him. Hence, the petitioner prays that the above said case in C.C.No.22 of 2006 is misconceived one. Further the petitioner/A2 is not at all engaged with the said C.C.No.22 of 2006 on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. 3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the respondent is CBCID, an independent agency, and after conducting enquiries, it has registered a case against the petitioner/A2 and four others for the alleged offences under sections 420, 406, 467, 471 and 406 r/w. 34 of IPC. Besides, the respondent registered a case under section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money circulation Scheme (Banking) Act, 1978). Further the first respondent i.e., Kalai Magal Sabha having the said office at Kumarapalayam, Salem District is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1975 in which he is the member in the name of his minor son Bharathmuthukumar and the society was running a number of schemes such as "House Plots Schemes", "Marriage Donation Scheme" and "Death Fund Scheme" etc. Under the schemes the public become members and invest their instalments. The said schemes were not properly functioned and the beneficiaries/members of the society so contributed were cheated by the accused. Hence, the respondent as CBCID registered a case against the accused persons in Crime No.1 of 1998. In the said case about 49 witnesses have to be examined. Besides number of documents have to be marked before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in supporting C.C.No.22 of 2006. 4. Hence, the respondent as CBCID registered a case against the accused persons in Crime No.1 of 1998. In the said case about 49 witnesses have to be examined. Besides number of documents have to be marked before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, in supporting C.C.No.22 of 2006. 4. After considering the case of the petitioner as well as respondent, I am of the opinion that the case is fit for trial. So many issues have also arises in the said case. All the issues have determined only after recording evidence and marking documents by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, then only learned Magistrate has come to the proper conclusion in this case. If the above said Crl.O.P.No.21943 of 2007 for quashing C.C.No. 22 of 2006 is allowed by this Court, the beneficiaries about 49 members will be put into great hardship and it will cause prejudice to them. Under the circumstances, the Court is not warranted to interfere with the said proceedings in C.C.No.22 of 2006 which is pending on the file of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal. Considering the cause of action, which was arose in the year 1998, the Court is constrained to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed as unnecessary.