JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the order dated 18.05.2012 needs to be recorded, which is as follows:- “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on the allegation that large scale irregularities have been committed in the matter of installation of hand-pumps, whereby the accused persons have misappropriated a huge amount, an F.I.R. was registered on 15.04.1999. Even after passing of more than 10 years, when the charge sheet was not submitted, this application was filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of denial of right to speedy justice. However, during pendency, charge sheet has been submitted, but still the ground on which the case is being sought to be quashed survives. Earlier the Vigilance was directed to file counter-affidavit so as to know about the reason for delay in filing the charge sheet, but unfortunately no counter affidavit has been filed. However, with a view to give one more opportunity, the case is adjourned on 22.06.2012, so that counter affidavit be filed, failing which, the Court will proceed with the matter on the basis of the material available on record. List this case on 22.06.2012.” 3. In terms of the order dated 18.05.2012, no counter affidavit has been filed. 4. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is the case of the prosecution that then the Executive Engineer in his progress report reported that 2699 hand-pumps have been installed in the financial years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93, but from other documents issued from the same office, it transpired that only 2171 hand-pumps had been stopped and, thereby, it has been alleged that 528 hand-pumps had never been installed, though the amount had been withdrawn. 5. On such allegation, the case was registered on 15.04.1999, but when the charge sheet was not submitted even after passing of a decade, this Writ Petition (Criminal) was filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding on the ground of denial of right to speedy justice. 6. However, during pendency of the writ application, the charge sheet was submitted, which according to Mr. 6. However, during pendency of the writ application, the charge sheet was submitted, which according to Mr. Jai Prakash, not against all the persons who had been named in the first information report, but upon selected persons including the petitioner, as the petitioner has filed this writ application. 7. It was further pointed out that the police is silent as to what happened to the Contractors against whom there was allegation of drewing money on showing fictitious installation of hand-pumps in conspiracy with other accused. 8. Thus, it was submitted that since there has been delay of more than a decade for which no explanation has been put forth on behalf of the prosecution, the instant prosecution is fit to be quashed, in view of the decision rendered in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2008 CRI. L. J. 3944 and also in view of the decision rendered in the case of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar reported in 2009 (1) PLJR S.C. 277. 9. As has stated earlier, no counter affidavit has been filed and as such, it could not be ascertained as to why such delay of more than a decade occurred in completion of the investigation. 10. It is true that right to speedy trial in all criminal prosecutions is the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. 11. However, in a case of Vakil Prasad Singh (supra), it has been held that in every cases, where the right to speedy trial is alleged to have been infringed, the court has to perform the balancing act upon taking into consideration all the attendant circumstances enumerated in order to determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. 12. Their Lordship has further gone to say that where the court comes to the conclusion that the right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless, the court feels that having regard to the nature of the offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing a proceeding, may not be in the interest of justice. 13. 13. Consequently, it has been held that in such situation it is open to the court to make an appropriate order as it may deem just and equitable including fixation of time frame for conclusion of trial. 14. Keeping in view the allegation upon which the first information report has been lodged and the charge sheet has already been submitted, I do feel that it would be appropriate to fix the time for conclusion of the trial instead of quashing of the entire criminal proceeding. 15. Accordingly, trial court is directed to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 16. With this observation, this application stands disposed of.