JUDGMENT : 1. Sri A.N.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners is physically present before the Court inclusive of learned HCGP for the respondent - State. 2. Petitioners' counsel seeks for some short accommodation to furnish requisite process fee along with correct address to issue notice against respondent No.2. But twice the time has been accommodated to the petitioners' counsel for taking appropriate steps, despite of that he is seeking for some more time to do the needful. 3. In this petition, the petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.186/2017 of Sadashivanagara Police Station pending on the file of the VII Addl.CMM, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Ss. 418, 420, 465, 193 and 196 of IPC. 4. The crime came to be registered by the Sadashivanagar Police Station on receipt of the complaint by the complainant - Sanjay Kumar Agarwal who is an instrument of the complaint. Based upon his complaint, the case in Crime No.186/2017 is registered by the respondent - police for the aforesaid offences. 5. It is relevant to note here that the crime is of the year 2017 and almost three years is completed but there is no progress by the investigating agency either to file charge sheet as contemplated under Sec. 173(1) of Cr.P.C. or to file any report as under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is relevant to refer Sec. 167 (2) (a) (i) and (ii) of Cr.P.C. 167.(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this sec. may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction: Provided that- (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days; if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding,- (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub- sec. shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision of law, this petition do not hold any substance to proceed further. The duty is cast upon the investigating agency to proceed for investigation and if there are sufficient materials available during the course of investigation as keeping in view Sec. 173(2) akin to Sec. 170 of Cr.P.C. the IO has to lay the charge sheet or to file any report as contemplated under the relevant provisions of Cr.P.C. Under the circumstances, it is said that the petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the offences relating to the crime which registered by the Sadashivanagar Police Station against the accused are reflected in the FIR. Therefore, whatever the observations made relating to the disposal of this petition, it shall not influence in the mind of neither the trial Court nor the investigation agency and they shall proceed further in accordance with law on merits.