ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. Grievance, which has been raised in this application by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that a case bearing Deoghar (Town) P.S. Case No.216 of 1990 was registered on 10.10.1990 under Sections 420/409/408/477A/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 5(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But still the I.O. has not submitted charge sheet against this petitioner and thereby, the petitioner has been denied right to speedy justice and on this ground alone, first information report be quashed so far this petitioner is concerned. 3. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid first information report was lodged alleging therein that the Contractor was paid excess amount of Rs.2,03,013.00/- illegally in connivance with the Engineers posted at that time, but the petitioner, at that time had never been posted rather he was posted later on and it is alleged against the petitioner that either he did some manipulation in the measurement book or at his instance, manipulation was done to justify the withdrawal of the amount as aforesaid by the accused persons but the I.O. has not been able to complete the investigation of the matter which is so simple. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Vigilance wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has not been co-operating with the I.O. to arrive at final conclusion in the matter and as such, the charge could not be filed against the petitioner, though the charge sheet has been submitted against other accused persons. It has been further stated that the petitioner, being Superintending Engineer, having hatched criminal conspiracy, called for the measurement book in his Office and did some manipulation over the entry made in the measurement book and which allegation goes to show about the culpability of the petitioner in the alleged offence. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it has been admitted fact that the case has been lodged in the year 1990, still charge sheet has not been submitted against this petitioner, though charge sheet has been submitted with respect to some accused persons. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it has been admitted fact that the case has been lodged in the year 1990, still charge sheet has not been submitted against this petitioner, though charge sheet has been submitted with respect to some accused persons. According to the statement made in the counter affidavit, some step was taken for apprehension of the petitioner so that he be interrogated but the I.O. failed to catch hold of this petitioner and, thereby, the petitioner could not be interrogated on the point on which, the I.O. wanted to interrogate him. 6. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the averment made in the counter affidavit, the I.O. seems to have taken some step but that step seems to have been taken in the year 2012 itself but nothing has been stated about the step being taken right from the year 1990 to 2012 and on this ground, the prosecution warrants to be quashed on the principle of denial of right to speedy justice. 7. In the context of the submission, I may refer to a decision of Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2009) 3 SCC 355 , wherein Their Lordships after noticing the principle laid down in the number of cases, relating to right of a person of speedy justice in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978)1 SCC 248 , Hussainara Khatoon and others v. Home Secretary State of Bihar, (1980)1 SCC 81 , Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr., (1992)1 SCC 225 , “Common Cause” A Registered Society vs. Union of India and others [ (1996) 4 SCC 33 ], A Registered Society vs. Union of India and others [ (1996) 6 SCC 775 ], Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar [ (1999) 7 SCC 604 ] and lastly in case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, [ (2002) 4 SCC 578 ], was pleased to hold as under:- “It is, therefore, well settled that the right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions (sic prosecutions) is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal prosecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In every case, 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 above, and determine in each case whether the right to speedy trial has been denied in a given case. 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 offence and other relevant circumstances, quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a 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.” 8. Thus, regard being had to the principle laid down in the cases, referred to above, there appear to be some latches on the part of the petitioner and also on the part of the I.O. However, since, allegation was there of measurement book being manipulated, the I.O. was required to interrogate the petitioner but he never seems to have presented himself before the I.O. and on account of non interrogation of the petitioner, I.O. seems to be handicapped in filing charge sheet against the petitioner. 9. Under the circumstances, it would be proper and appropriate to direct the I.O. to proceed with the investigation and to conclude it within three months from today, provided the petitioner makes himself available with the interrogation or other purposes related with the investigation. 10. Thus, this application stands disposed. 11. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance for needful.