JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional P.P. for the State respondent. 2. This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred by the petitioner, Shri Lalit Kumar Singh, for quashing the Criminal Proceeding in Basar P.S. Case No. 01/2009, under section 409 IPC, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:- “On 22.01.2009, Shri Ghana Kanta Deori, the Branch Manager, Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank (APRB) Basar Branch lodged one FIR with the Officer-in-Charge, Basar Police Station to the effect that Shri Lalit Kumar Singh, the Branch Manager of (APRB), Basar Branch, up to 21.01.2009, has misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 11,36,000/ in different accounts and in different style from APRB, Basar Branch, during the period of his Branch Managership, in December 08 and January 2009. Upon the said FIR the Officer-in-Charge, Basar Police Station, registered Basar P.S. Case No. 01/2009, under section 409 IPC, and endorsed S.I. Talang Jamoh, to investigate the same. The I.O. then visited the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses and seized relevant documents and arrested the accused and forwarded him to the court. Then on completion of investigation, the I.O. laid charge sheet against the accused to stand trial in the court under section 409 IPC, citing as many as seven witnesses. Upon the said charge sheet, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process to the accused. Accordingly, the accused before the learned court below and then hearing both the sides the learned court below has framed charge against the petitioner under section 409 IPC and on being read and explained over the same to him he pleaded not guilty to the same. Thereafter, the learned court below has issued summoned to the prosecution witnesses and has examined as many as four witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution side has failed to produce the remaining two witnesses despite issuance of bailable warrant of arrest against them. Thereafter, the learned court below has issued summoned to the prosecution witnesses and has examined as many as four witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution side has failed to produce the remaining two witnesses despite issuance of bailable warrant of arrest against them. While the case is pending for examination of rest of the witnesses, the petitioner has approached this court by filing the present petition on the ground that the prosecution side has failed to produced the witnesses and on account of that he has repeatedly requested the learned court below to close the prosecution evidence, but, the learned court below has not closed the same, and that there is no outstanding amount to be paid to the bank on the part of the petitioner and that mere delay in refunding the amount would not constitute the offence under section 409 IPC, and that he is entitled to the benefit of section 96 IPC as the over draft was only for self defence and that there was also no entrustment of fund to him, and that during investigation the I.O. had failed to seize some vital documents and that the petitioner was made a scapegoat, and that delay in trial, since 2009, violate his right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is contended to allow this petition by setting aside and quashing the entire criminal proceeding.” 4. Mr. G. Taloh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the F.I.R. was filed in the year 2009, and charge sheet was filled within eight months and since then the case is pending for last 13 years. Mr. Taloh further submits that the alleged amount has already been paid and that the petitioner is suffering from different old age ailments and there was no criminality in the action of the petitioners. Mr. Taloh, therefore, contended to allow this petition by setting aside and quashing the FIR, or alternatively, to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo to complete the trail with in a definite time frame. 5. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, the learned Addl. Mr. Taloh, therefore, contended to allow this petition by setting aside and quashing the FIR, or alternatively, to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo to complete the trail with in a definite time frame. 5. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, the learned Addl. P.P. submits that there are prima- facie materials against the petitioner and therefore, the charge has been framed under section 409 IPC and the case is pending in the stage of evidence and there remains to examine three witnesses only and the charge is serious in nature and Ms. Hage, therefore, contended to dismiss this petition. 6. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the record of learned court below. 7. It appears that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged by the Branch Manager of APRB, Basar Branch on 22.01.2009. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 10.09.2009. The accused was charged on 17.09.2018. Since then the prosecution side has examined as many as four witnesses. And there remains to examine three witnesses only, including the I.O. Further, it appears that on account of non appearance of two witnesses the learned court below has issued bailable warrant of arrest against two witnesses, and the I.O. is also being summoned. Thus, there appears to be no lapse at all, either on the part of the prosecution or on the part of the learned court below. The case appears to be heading toward a logical conclusion. 8. I have considered the submission of Mr. G. Taloh, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of facts and circumstances on the record and I am in respectful disagreement with the same. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of section 96 IPC or not and whether the amount was paid in self defence or not are to be decided at end of trial not at this stage. The law in this regard is well settled in catena of decisions. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 , has held as under:- “5. The law in this regard is well settled in catena of decisions. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Akram Siddiqui v. State of Bihar reported in (2019) 13 SCC 350 , has held as under:- “5. Ordinarily and in the normal course, the High Court when approached for quashing of a criminal proceeding will not appreciate the defence of the accused; neither would it consider the veracity of the document(s) on which the accused relies. However an exception has been carved out by this Court in Yin Cheng Hsiung v. Essem Chemical Industries; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Harshendra Kumar D. v. Rebatilata Koley to the effect that in an appropriate case where the document relied upon is a public document or where veracity thereof is not disputed by the complainant, the same can be considered.” 09. In the case of CBI v. Arvind Khanna, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 686 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :- “17. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the High Court has recorded findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the appellant CBI, and the defence put forth by the respondent, led us to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 18. In our view, the assessment made by the High Court at this stage, when the matter has been taken cognizance of by the competent court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for.” 10. Thus, it is well settled that at the time of quashing the proceeding, the defence plea of the petitioner/accused is not required to be considered. Therefore, this court is unable to record concurrence with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Thus, it is well settled that at the time of quashing the proceeding, the defence plea of the petitioner/accused is not required to be considered. Therefore, this court is unable to record concurrence with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. It is to be noted here that in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688 , Hon’ble Supreme Court, discussing two of its earlier decisions in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ (2012) 10 SCC 303 ] and Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ (2014) 6 SCC 466 , in paragraph No. 13, has held as under:- “(i) that the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute amongst themselves; ii) Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society; iii) Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender; …………………………..” 12. It appears that the present case, though not registered under prevention of Corruption Act, yet, the same has been registered under section 409 of IPC for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 11,36,000/ in different accounts and in different style from APRB, Basar Branch, while he was working as Branch Manager, in the month of December 08 and January 2009. Having regards to the nature of accusation and also the material placed on record this court is of the view that the grounds so assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for quashing the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner, this court is of the considered opinion that the submissions, so advanced by Mr. Having regards to the nature of accusation and also the material placed on record this court is of the view that the grounds so assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for quashing the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner, this court is of the considered opinion that the submissions, so advanced by Mr. Taloh, the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force and therefore, cannot be acceded to. 13. However, it is a fact that right to speedy trial is encompass in the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Reference in this context can be made to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar reported in 1979 AIR 1360, wherein it has been held that the “right to a speedy trial” is a fundamental right implicit in the right of life and personal liberty provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was also observed that no procedure which does not ensure reasonable, quick trial, can be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. 14. In the case of Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R S Nayak, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 225 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is available at all stages namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. Though the Court laid down detailed guidelines for the speedy trial of an accused in a criminal trial, but refused to set a time limit for the conclusion of the trial. It is also held that the nature of the offence and the circumstances may be such that quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. 15. In the case of Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka: reported in (2002) 4 SCC 578 , Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down certain factors to identify whether an accused has been deprived of his Right to Speedy Trial. They are: length of delay, the justification for the delay, the accused assertion of his Right to Speedy Trial, and prejudice caused to the accused by such delay. And if nothing is shown and there are no circumstances to raise a presumption that the accused had been prejudiced, there will be no justification to quash the conviction on the ground of delayed trial only. 16. And if nothing is shown and there are no circumstances to raise a presumption that the accused had been prejudiced, there will be no justification to quash the conviction on the ground of delayed trial only. 16. In the instant case, since the date registration of the case, till date almost 13 years elapsed. The case was registered on 22.01.2009, and after investigation the I.O. had filed the charge sheet on 10.09.2009. Thereafter, the case was pending before the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Aalo, as at relevant time Judiciary was not separated from the Executive and the criminal justice was administered by the Executives. After separation of Judiciary from Executive, the learned ADM had transferred the case to the learned Chief Judicial, Aalo and only thereafter, the trial started. The charge was framed on 17.09.2018. Since then the prosecution side has examined as many as four witnesses. And there remains to examine three other witnesses, including the I.O. Further, it appears that on account of non appearance of two witnesses the learned court below had issued bailable warrant of arrest against the two witnesses, and the I.O. is also being summoned. Thus, there appears to be no lapse at all, either on the part of the prosecution or on the part of the learned court below. 17. Thus, having considered the factual as well as legal positions, as discussed herein above, this court is unable to record concurrence to the submissions, so advanced by Mr. G. Taloh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of what has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antuley (supra), no time limit can also set by this court to dispose of the case by the learned court below. 18. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, this court hope and trust that the learned court below shall endeavour to dispose of the case at the earliest possible time, and to achieve the said goal the learned court below may avail various provisions provided in Cr.P.C., including section 309(1) Cr.P.C., so that the right to speedy trial of the petitioner is not impaired, without being influence by any of the observations made herein above, by this court. Interim stay, if any, granted earlier, stands vacated. The parties have to bear their own costs.