JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. In the instant application, the petitioner prays for quashing the entire prosecution of Simri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2001 (G.R. No. 867 of 2001) under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Allegation is that a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and odd was sanctioned for renovation of work of Middle School, Kharhatan, Simri, Buxar. 4. One, Samir Kumar Ojha made complaint to District Magistrate. Buxar regarding commission of irregularity in the renovation of the School building. Thereafter on the direction of the District Magistrate, Buxar, the instant case being Simri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2001 was instituted. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid work was completed through the petitioner, who was holding the post of Junior Engineer then. Learned counsel submits that in fact the petitioner incurred an excess expenditure of Rs. 35,000/- over and above advance amount of Rs. 3,07,000/- made to him. He further submits that the Director, Accounts Administration in Self-employment, D.R.D.A., Buxar submitted a joint enquiry report vide letter no. 47, dated 28.12.2007 wherein, he too found that the work was executed satisfactorily by the petitioner and he had incurred excess work to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- over a sum of Rs.3,07,000/-, which was advanced to him. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry report, the District Magistrate, Buxar wrote a letter to Public Prosecutor, Buxar regarding withdrawal of the First Information Report. Learned P.P., Buxar, suggested that all these facts be brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer of the case. Thereupon the District Magistrate, Buxar wrote a letter to Superintendent of Police, Buxar bearing Memo No. 11 dated 8.1.2008. In the aforesaid letter, the District Magistrate, Buxar stated that the scheme has been completed and it would appear from the measurement book and departmental enquiry that the work has been completed satisfactorily and he further stated that petitioner has incurred excess expenditure of Rs. 35,000/-, as such continuance of investigation would be wastage of time. He suggested that the aforesaid report is a mistake of fact. 6. Counsel for the State has drawn attention to letter no. 146 dated 15.1.2008 of Superintendent of Police, Buxar addressed to District Magistrate, Buxar, in which he stated that investigation work be better left to the police officiate. 7. He suggested that the aforesaid report is a mistake of fact. 6. Counsel for the State has drawn attention to letter no. 146 dated 15.1.2008 of Superintendent of Police, Buxar addressed to District Magistrate, Buxar, in which he stated that investigation work be better left to the police officiate. 7. Heard counsel for the parties. It would appear that though the case was instituted in the year, 2001, the investigation has not yet concluded though more than 9 years have elapsed. It would also appear that the District Magistrate, Buxar in his letter addressed to Superintendent of Police, Buxar has stated that the work has been completed satisfactorily, and in fact an excess expenditure of Rs. 35,000/- has been incurred by the petitioner. It would appear from the counter affidavit also, that initially some irregularities were found in the work. 8. It is relevant to state here that in view of the decision of Honble Apex Court, in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2009 SC 1822 [:2009(1) PLJR (SC)277] held that prolonged investigation without any viable explanation would violate speedy investigation guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the same is liable to be quashed. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court grants one last indulgence and directs that the Investigating Officer of the case to complete the investigation and submit its report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, also taking into consideration the letter of the District Magistrate, Buxar, alongwith other materials that may have been collected during course of investigation, as contained in Annexure-2. 10. No coercive steps would be taken by the police against the petitioner in connection with Simri P.S. Case No. 70 of 2001, pending conclusion of the investigation, which must be done within the stipulated time. 11. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of.