Judgment : 1. The petitioner is facing the trial in C.C.No.237 of 2010 filed under Sections 406, 408, 409, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 418, 201 r/w 109 and 34 IPC The petitioner was serving as a Special Officer of the Vishwa Karma Nagar Co-operative Building Society, Trichy, While disburing the house loan, certain irregularities were said to have been committed by the petitioner and others. Therefore, the criminal cases have been filed against the petitioners and others. In the criminal cases, after investigation a charge-sheet has been filed. The said charge-sheet is challenged before this Court stating that the proceedings initiated under Section 81 of the Co-operative Societies Act namely, surcharge proceedings, though ordered by the Officer, on appeal, it was reversed in favour of the petitioner. When the surcharge proceedings itself has been decided in favour of the petitioner, there is nothing to be decided by the criminal Court, Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends. 2. On the other hand, Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent submits that whether the petitioner committed the irregularity or not, cannot be decided at this stage and only full fledged trial alone can give the answer. 3. Though the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed under Section 81 of the Cooperative Societies Act, was decided in favour of the petitioner, that itself cannot be a ground for quashing the charge sheet filed against the petitioner. If really, the petitioner is armed with such an order, he can employ the same during the trial. Whether the irregularities were committed or not by the petitioner as well as the other officials, has to be decided only after the full fledged trial. Sitting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, this Court cannot at the threshold, decide the nature of the offences and the veracity of the case. 4. Mr.RM.Arun Swaminathan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is aged about 64 years and she has to travel about four hours from Vadipatti to Trichy to appear the Court. Therefore, he seeks dispense with, for which the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed. 5. Taking into consideration, the fact that the petitioner has to travel a long distance, this Court ordered dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner for the next hearing. Therefore, he seeks dispense with, for which the Government Advocate (Criminal Side) opposed. 5. Taking into consideration, the fact that the petitioner has to travel a long distance, this Court ordered dispensing with the appearance of the petitioner for the next hearing. If really, the petitioner faces any problem in appearing before the trial Court, the petitioner is always liberty to file a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C and the said petition is directed to be decided by the trial Court. Taking into consideration the fact that the irregularities were said to have been committed during 1997 to 2000, and after investigation charge sheet was filed in the year 2010, it is appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the matter at the earliest. 6. With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.