ORDER : The petitioner/A7, who is facing trial in Special C.C.No.1 of 2019 before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore, for offence under Sections 120(b), 109 r/w 167, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 468, 471, 420, 167 r/w 109 IPC and Sections 201 r/w 511 IPC and Sections 109 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has filed the above Criminal Original Petition. 2. The gist of the case is that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board implemented the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project with financial assistance of World Bank and allotted the house plots to the needy. During the year 1989, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board totally acquired a land to the extent of 291.19 acres at Ganapathy, Coimbatore. A portion of the lands developed into 2933 plots, out of which, 590 plots were allotted for the Economically Stronger Section, 1166 plots were allotted for Economically Weaker Section, 574 plots were allotted for Lower Income Group-1, 388 plots were allotted for Lower Income Group-2, 182 plots were allotted for Middle Income Group and 33 plots were allotted for High Income Group. 3. The witness K.A.Hajamoideen (hereinafter referred to as 'LW2'), S/o.Abdul Rasak applied for MIG plot in the above said scheme and he was selected and allotted in LOT by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as 'TNHB') vide order dated 29.12.1994 in Lr.No.A3/2224/1990 for the MIG plot No.1125 situated at Ganapathy Phase-I, Coimbatore measuring about 180 sq.mt value around Rs.1,26,225/-. Initially, LW2 made payment of Rs.50,490/- and he has to pay the remaining principal amount of Rs.75,735/- with interest at the rate of 12% in ten years i.e., Rs.1,603/- per mensum. LW2 has paid the amount of Rs.60,657/- and the interest amount of Rs.50,260/- during the period from 20.01.1995 to 17.02.2005. On 17.02.2005, LW2 approached the officials of TNHB for payment of balance amount of Rs.15,078/-. Despite repeated request made by LW2 seeking for execution of sale deed in favour of him, A1, the then Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer (under suspension), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB Coimbatore; A2, the then Work Assistant (under suspension), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB Coimbatore and A4, Bill Collector (Retired), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB Coimbatore, neither informed the exact balance amount payable by LW2, nor chose to register the sale deed. 4. 4. In such circumstances, during the year 2012, A5, the then Assistant (under suspension), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB Coimbatore informed the petitioner/A7, who is the real estate broker about the meagre amount to be paid by LW2, since the petitioner is the habitual purchaser of Housing Board Plots in Coimbatore and also a broker in arranging the bogus purchasers. In pursuant to it, the accused made payment in the name of A3 and changed the records and made allotment in the name of A3 and sale deed was executed in his favour of A3, denying the original allottee (LW2). A5 during the period of suspension fabricated the bogus allotment order for the plot No.MIG 1125 in Ganapathy Phase-I in favour of A3. The original allottee was LW2, who almost made the entire payment. In execution of the common design, A2 entered the name of A3 in the place of LW2 in TNHB office computer and other records. In this case, A6 claims to be a relative of A3. The petitioner paid the amount of Rs.49,700/- on behalf of A3, when A3 was in Singapore. A1 approved the sale deed, authorized to execute sale deed in favour of A3 on 15.06.2012 and issued authorization letter. A4 signed in the sale deed as Superintendent, TNHB, Coimbatore and A6 and the petitioner/A7 have signed in the sale deed as witness. 5. All the accused to save themselves, after the commission of the above offences, had caused disappearance of the original allotment file of LW2. Thereafter, LW2 lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Coimbatore and the same was registered in Crime No.23 of 2014 and later, it was transferred to the file of the respondent Police, who registered a case in Crime No.09/2015/AC/CB for the above offences committed by the accused. On completion of investigation, the respondent Police filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the same was taken on file as Special C.C.No.1 of 2019, against which the petitioner/A7 has filed the above petition. 6. On completion of investigation, the respondent Police filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the same was taken on file as Special C.C.No.1 of 2019, against which the petitioner/A7 has filed the above petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier for the same offence alleged to have been committed by the accused, LW2 lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Coimbatore on 03.04.2013 and the same was registered in Crime No.23 of 2014, for offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC seeking transfer of allotment of land in his favour. In the said complaint, the name of the petitioner does not find place and the complaint was made against only the officials of TNHB for not executing the sale deed. The learned counsel further submitted that A3 in this case executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner/A7 in document No.606 of 2012, dated 16.11.2012. Later, the power of attorney was cancelled on 07.05.2013. The power of attorney was never acted upon. Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, in the present case, the complainant and the investigation officer are one and the same person who registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet, which is totally illegal. The respondent Police in this case falsely implicated the petitioner as though he arranged the purchaser/A3 in this case for purchasing the plot allotted to LW2. The entire case against the petitioner proceeds on presumption and assumption and there is no concrete materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner/A7 was initially given power by A3 which was not acted upon and later, it was cancelled, which clearly shows that there is no conspiracy between the petitioner and the officials of TNHB and also the other accused. Since the petitioner is in the business of real estate, the allottees of the TNHB used to approach the petitioner to sell their lands for higher rate. The petitioner for a small commission used to help the allottees in selling their plots to others. Other than this, the petitioner had not involved in any of the transactions done by the officials of TNHB. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case, two FIRs were registered. The petitioner for a small commission used to help the allottees in selling their plots to others. Other than this, the petitioner had not involved in any of the transactions done by the officials of TNHB. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case, two FIRs were registered. Initially, the FIR in Crime No.23 of 2014, for offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC was registered by the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Coimbatore on 03.04.2013 and later, the respondent Police registered the above case. In both the FIRs, the name of the petitioner does not find place. 8. From the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it could be seen that LW4, the Manager, Marketing Service, Divisional Accountant, Coimbatore Housing Unit was enquired, by showing 63 documents, out of which 3 documents stand in the name of the petitioner, in which the petitioner has been shown as attesting witness to the documents for which no criminality could be attributed against him. From the statement of LW13 V.R.Subramaniam, Bill Collector (now retired), Coimbatore Housuing Unit, TNHB, Coimbatore, it is seen that a receipt for Rs.49,700/- was issued by him on 18.05.2012. The petitioner/A7 along with A6, who is a relative of A3, approached LW13 for making payment and on the instructions of A2, he received the amount. Thus, the petitioner had only accompanied A6 in payment of the money and nothing more. LW18 (Sub Registrar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore) and LW19 (Sub Registrar, Chit & Society, Ooty) have stated about the power granted in favour of the petitioner/A7 and later, it was cancelled. Further, the petitioner stood as a witness for the sale deed executed in favour of A3. In this case, LW30 is the other attesting witness, who is similarly placed is shown as witness, on the other hand the petitioner is arrayed as accused. The petitioner has been primarily arrayed as accused on the charge of conspiracy and abettment and there is no specific overtact attributed against him. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the informant and the investigating officer are one and the same, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Mohan Lal Versus State of Punjab reported in (2018) 17 Supreme Court Cases 627” and sought for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner/A7. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the informant and the investigating officer are one and the same, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Mohan Lal Versus State of Punjab reported in (2018) 17 Supreme Court Cases 627” and sought for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner/A7. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent filed counter and submitted that in this case, LW2 was allotted MIG plot No.1125 measuring about 188 sq.mt on 29.12.1994 and the cost of the plot was fixed at Rs.1,26,225/-. Initially, LW2 paid Rs.50,490/- and the balance amount of Rs.75,735/- has to be paid in instalment with interest at the rate of 12% in ten years. During the period from 20.01.1995 to 17.02.2005, LW2 paid the principle and interest amount and there was a meagre amount of Rs.15,078/- to be paid as on 17.05.2015 and LW2 was ready to pay. Despite repeated request made by him seeking to execute the sale deed in his favour, the accused, who are the officials of TNHB failed to do so. In the meanwhile, A5 intimated the petitioner about the pendency of the amount and the sale deed yet to be allotted in favour of LW2. Since LW2 being the small time vendor without proper education and knowledge, the accused took advantage of the same and allotted the plot in favour of A3 by creating bogus documents. The petitioner is a habitual purchaser of plots in Coimbatore and he is a broker, arranging bogus purchaser. Thus, the accused in conspiracy with the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of A3 and thereby denied the original allottee (LW2). 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board scheme is a beneficiary scheme wherein certain privileges were given to the weaker sections of the society. In this case, A2 entered the name of A3 in the place of LW2 in TNHB office computer and the records of TNHB. A4 signed the document as though he was the Superintendent of TNHB. A1 without verifying and scrutinizing the official document in conspiracy with the other accused, authorized the execution of the sale deed in favour of A3. The petitioner/A7 and A6 had constituted as witnesses to the document and also identified A3 during registration. A4 signed the document as though he was the Superintendent of TNHB. A1 without verifying and scrutinizing the official document in conspiracy with the other accused, authorized the execution of the sale deed in favour of A3. The petitioner/A7 and A6 had constituted as witnesses to the document and also identified A3 during registration. Since LW2 was persistent in executing the sale deed, the accused caused disappearance of the original allotment file of LW2. Hence, LW2 lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Cell, Coimbatore and the case was registered in Crime No.23 of 2014, for offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. Later during investigation the involvement of the officials of the TNHB by abusing official position as public servant and obtaining pecuniary advantage came to light, the case was forwarded to the file of the respondent Police, who registered the case, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet before the trial Court, in which 33 witnesses cited as LW1 to LW33 and 56 documents annexed as LD1 to LD56. The trial Court on perusal of the final report satisfied that a prima facie case was made against the accused, took the case on file and issued summons to the accused. At this stage, the petitioner approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings against him. Hence, prayed for dismissal. 12. During investigation, the petitioner/A7 admitted that he acted as an agent and real estate broker, who usually dealt with the sale of TNHB plots in conspiracy with the other officials in TNHB. In this case, the allotment orders have been forged in the computer as well as in the records of TNHB and the original files of LW2 found missing. Thereafter, forged allotment orders have been made to the persons who paid huge amount to the accused. Thus, the petitioner in connivance with the officials of TNHB acted instrumental in executing the sale deeds to third persons denying the original allottees defecting the beneficiary scheme of TNHB. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner involved himself not only in these allotments, but in several other allotments also. LW30/Naveen Kumar, the other attesting witness to the sale deed is none other than son of A6. Except for signing as a witness, LW30 is not involved in any other transactions. 13. During investigation, it was found that the petitioner involved himself not only in these allotments, but in several other allotments also. LW30/Naveen Kumar, the other attesting witness to the sale deed is none other than son of A6. Except for signing as a witness, LW30 is not involved in any other transactions. 13. The contention of the petitioner that he was roped in this case on the charge of conspiracy and abetment is not correct. The petitioner along with other accused approached the officials of TNHB and made the entire balance amount on behalf of A3, when A3 was in Singapore and thereby, facilitated officials of TNHB to create documents and to execute sale deed in favour of A3. LW4, the Manager, Marketing Service, Divisional Accountant, Coimbatore categorically stated that there have been multiple power of attorney deeds in the name of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has sold the allotted plots to third persons for huge consideration and shared the same with the officials of TNHB. The power of attorney executed by A3 in favour of the petitioner to deal with the allotted plot was later cancelled. The cancellation of the power of attorney would not absolve the petitioner from the case. 14. In support of his submissions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the case of the Amit Kapoor Versus Ramesh Chander and another reported in (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 460, in which guidelines were issued and the same are extracted herein under:- “27. Having discussed the scope of jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e. Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code and the fine line of jurisdictional distinction, now it will be appropriate for us to enlist the principles with reference to which the courts should exercise such jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult but is inherently impossible to state with precision such principles. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1. At best and upon objective analysis of various judgments of this Court, we are able to cull out some of the principles to be considered for proper exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with regard to quashing of charge either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or Section 482 of the Code or together, as the case may be: 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. 27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. 27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. 27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. 27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused. 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. 27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8. 27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender. 27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose. 27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a “civil wrong” with no “element of criminality” and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence. 27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. 27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction. 27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. 27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution. 27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie. 27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge. 27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist. [Ref. State of W.B. v. Swapan Kumar Guha [ (1982) 1 SCC 561 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 283 : AIR 1982 SC 949 ] ; Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] ; Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36 : AIR 1993 SC 892 ] ; Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059] ; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] ; Ajay Mitra v. State of M.P. [ (2003) 3 SCC 11 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 703] ; Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate [ (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400 : AIR 1998 SC 128 ] ; State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma [ (1996) 7 SCC 705 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 497] ; Ganesh Narayan Hegde v. S. Bangarappa [ (1995) 4 SCC 41 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 634] ; Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283] ; Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 : AIR 2000 SC 1869 ] ; Shakson Belthissor v. State of Kerala [ (2009) 14 SCC 466 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1412] ; V.V.S. Rama Sharma v. State of U.P. [ (2009) 7 SCC 234 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 356] ; Chunduru Siva Ram Krishna v. Peddi Ravindra Babu [ (2009) 11 SCC 203 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1297] ; Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar [(1987) 1 SCC 288 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 82] ; State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma [1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 : AIR 1991 SC 1260 ] ; Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar [ (2001) 2 SCC 17 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 275] ; M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] ; Savita v. State of Rajasthan [ (2005) 12 SCC 338 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 571] and S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat [ (2001) 7 SCC 659 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1361 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1201] .] 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.” 15. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the above Quash Petition. 16. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 17. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board implemented the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project with financial assistance of World Bank and allotted house plots to different sections of the society. In this scheme, LW2 was allotted MIG plot No.1125, for which he almost paid the entire amount and he has to pay a small portion of the amount. 17. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board implemented the Tamil Nadu Urban Development Project with financial assistance of World Bank and allotted house plots to different sections of the society. In this scheme, LW2 was allotted MIG plot No.1125, for which he almost paid the entire amount and he has to pay a small portion of the amount. LW2 approached the officials of the TNHB regularly seeking to know when the balance amount to be paid and also to know when the sale deed would be executed in his favour. Despite several attempts, the officials of TNHB did not entertain LW2. On the contrary, A5, the then Assistant (under suspension) Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB, Coimbatore, Assistant on coming to know about the non execution of the sale deed in favour of LW2 informed the petitioner/A7, a real estate broker, who normally indulges in selling of housing plots. A3, who was staying in Singapore, was approached by the petitioner through A6. The petitioner promised that the housing plot would be allotted in favour of A3 on payment of money. Thereafter, the petitioner and A6 approached LW13, Bill Collector (now retired), Coimbatore Housing Unit, TNHB, Coimbatore. LW13 initially refused to receive the balance lump sum in the name of A3 without any proper documents. On the instructions of A2, who changed the original allotment in the TNHB computer and other records, LW13 received the balance amount. Thereafter, the allotment and records have been forged in the name of A3 as though he is the original allottee by deleting the name of LW2 and the sale deed has been executed in favour of A3. The execution of the sale deed has been clearly spoken by the registration authorities and subsequent to it, a power of attorney was executed by A3 in favour of the petitioner and later it was cancelled. Thus, a deliberate design was carried out by the accused taking advantage illiteracy and humble social background of the people, who are meek and weak. 18. The officials of the TNHB have clearly stated about the payments received from LW2 for allotment of the plot and payment of monthly EMIs over the years. Now the files are found missing, corrections are made in the system and the official records of TNHB. Thus from the statement of witnesses and documents collected, the role of the petitioner along with other accused is well founded. 19. Now the files are found missing, corrections are made in the system and the official records of TNHB. Thus from the statement of witnesses and documents collected, the role of the petitioner along with other accused is well founded. 19. The contentions of the petitioner that the complainant and the investigating officer being one and the same is bad in law and placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Mohan Lal Versus State of Punjab reported in (2018) 17 Supreme Court Cases 627” is not sustainable for the following reasons. 20. In the case of “Varinder Kumar Versus State of Himachal Pradesh reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 170”, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down that the case of Mohan Lal (cited above) will not be applicable to the cases pending criminal prosecution, trial and appeals. In the case of “Mukesh Singh Versus State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1096” held that Mohan Lal case requires consideration by a Larger Bench. The Hon'ble Apex Court in reference constituting a Five Judge Bench held by judgment dated 31.08.2020 as follows:- “13.2. (II) In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case-to-case basis. A contrary decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab [Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 215] and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.” 21. Thus, this Court on the legal aspects and on the facts and materials of the case, finds that the contention of the petitioner are not sustainable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Thus, this Court on the legal aspects and on the facts and materials of the case, finds that the contention of the petitioner are not sustainable. Hence, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 22. Considering the case is of the year 2019 and only 33 witnesses and 56 documents are annexed to the charge sheet, the trial Court is directed to give top priority and dispose the case within a period of six months from the date of lifting of lock down and commencement of normal functioning of the Courts below. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.