JUDGMENT K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J. - This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 115 of 2018 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimvaram, West Godavari district, as against the petitioner, who is arrayed A.4 in the said Sessions Case. 2. A charge sheet has been filed in crime No. 36 of 2011 of Undi police station against the petitioner/A.4 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C read with 34 IPC. Brief facts of the case of prosecution may be stated as follows: A.1 to A.6 are close associates and they are eking out their livelihood by exchange of fake currency notes with a view to get more money in a short period. A.1 introduced himself to A.2 in Central Prison, Rajahmundry while A.2 was in jail. A.2 was instructed by A.1 to arrange four other persons to exchange fake currency stating that he would provide the fake currency for changing the same in market for getting more money. Accordingly, A.2 developed friendship with A.3 to A.6 and advised them to work with him for change of fake currency and they agreed for the proposal of A.2. On 15.04.2011 at about 10.00 AM at Uma Maheswari Rice Mill turning, Railway Station Road, Undi, the Sub Inspector of Police along his staff found A.2 to A.6 chit-chatting with each other, and on seeing arrival of police, they tried to skulk away. With the help of his staff, the Sub Inspector caught hold them and got their confessional statements drafted and seized the fake currency notes from the other accused, whereas from petitioner/A.4 is concerned, Rs. 20,000/- fake currency each containing Rs. 100/- denomination was seized from him, under cover of mediators report. The Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused and registered a case in crime No. 36 of 2011, and after completion of investigation, Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram laid the charge sheet. 3. 20,000/- fake currency each containing Rs. 100/- denomination was seized from him, under cover of mediators report. The Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused and registered a case in crime No. 36 of 2011, and after completion of investigation, Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram laid the charge sheet. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only with a view to harass the petitioner, the present case is foisted against him, and the mediators report is baseless; that though the case was registered in the year 2011, the same has not been proceeded with further for the last 11 years and trial has not yet commenced for the reasons best known to the concerned authorities, and in view of the fact that trial has not commenced, the petitioner/A.4 is entitled for quashing the proceedings. He relied on the decision in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2022) 4 SCC 578, wherein it is held thus: (paragraph 29) 'For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that in Common Cause case (I) [ (1996) 4 SCC 33 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 589] [as modified in Common Cause (II) [ (1996) 6 SCC 775 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 42]] and Raj Deo Sharma (I) [ (1998) 7 SCC 507 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1692] and (II) [ (1999) 7 SCC 604 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1324] the Court could not have prescribed periods of limitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case or a criminal proceeding cannot continue and must mandatorily be closed followed by an order acquitting or discharging the accused. In conclusion we hold: (1) The dictum in A.R. Antulay case [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] is correct and still holds the field. (2) The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay case [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] adequately take care of right to speedy trial. We uphold and reaffirm the said propositions. (3) The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay case [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard-and-fast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact situation of each case. We uphold and reaffirm the said propositions. (3) The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay case [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard-and-fast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made. (4) It is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings. The time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in Common Cause (I) [ (1996) 4 SCC 33 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 589], Raj Deo Sharma (I) [ (1998) 7 SCC 507 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1692] and Raj Deo Sharma (II) [ (1999) 7 SCC 604 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1324] could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law. The criminal courts are not obliged to terminate trial or criminal proceedings merely on account of lapse of time, as prescribed by the directions made in Common Cause case (I) [ (1996) 4 SCC 33 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 589], Raj Deo Sharma case (I) [ (1998) 7 SCC 507 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1692] and (II) [ (1999) 7 SCC 604 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1324]. At the most the periods of time prescribed in those decisions can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration the several relevant factors as pointed out in A.R. Antulay case [ (1992) 1 SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93] and decide whether the trial or proceedings have become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused. (5) The criminal courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. (5) The criminal courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be a better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions. (6) This is an appropriate occasion to remind the Union of India and the State Governments of their constitutional obligation to strengthen the judiciary -- quantitatively and qualitatively -- by providing requisite funds, manpower and infrastructure. We hope and trust that the Governments shall act. We answer the questions posed in the orders of reference dated 19-9-2000 and 26-4-2001 in the abovesaid terms.' There is no dispute about the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State contended that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and the alleged offences are grave in nature, and mere delay in conclusion of trial is not a ground to quash the impugned proceedings against him. 5. Now, the point for determination is whether there are any grounds to quash the impugned proceedings against the petitioner/A.4? 6. It is alleged that on credible information, on 15.04.2011 at 10.00 AM, the Sub Inspector of Police, Undi police station along with staff arrested A.2 to A.6 at Uma Maheswari Rice Mill, Undi, and the said persons are said to have made confessional statement. Pursuant to the same, the Sub Inspector of Police seized -3 bundles fake notes worth Rs. 29,900/- viz. two bundles of Rs. 100/- notes containing 100 Nos. each and one bundle of Rs. 100/- notes containing 99 Nos., from the possession of A.2; two bundles of Rs. 100/- fake notes containing 100 Nos. each, total worth Rs. 20,000/-, from the possession of A.3; two bundles of Rs. 100/- fake notes containing 100 Nos. each, total worth Rs. 20,000/-, from the possession of petitioner/A.4; 94 Nos. of Rs. 100/- denomination fake notes from the possession of A.5; 40 Nos. of Rs. 100/- denomination and 2 Nos. of Rs. 500/- denomination, total worth Rs. 5,000/-, fake notes from the possession of A.6. 100/- fake notes containing 100 Nos. each, total worth Rs. 20,000/-, from the possession of petitioner/A.4; 94 Nos. of Rs. 100/- denomination fake notes from the possession of A.5; 40 Nos. of Rs. 100/- denomination and 2 Nos. of Rs. 500/- denomination, total worth Rs. 5,000/-, fake notes from the possession of A.6. Basing on the confessional statement and the recovery, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in crime No. 36 of 2011 of Undi police station and filed charge sheet, after completion of investigation. 7. Going by the record, a charge sheet has been filed and the same was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 6 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. From the date of registering the crime, A.1 Sirapudi Phani Kumar, is absconding. By mentioning the same, charge sheet was filed. As the police failed to produce A.1, case against A.1 was split up and numbered as P.R.C. No. 46 of 2017, and P.R.C. No. 6 of 2012 was committed to the Court of Session, insofar as A.2 to A.6, vide Order dated 07.02.2018. The same was numbered as Sessions Case No. 115 of 2018 and made over to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram, and the learned Assistant Sessions Judge framed charges in the said Sessions Case No. 115 of 2018, against A.2 to A.6 on 30.11.2018. 8. The offences alleged against the petitioner are serious in nature. Proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of delay in proceeding with trial. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that in view of intervention of Covid-19 pandemic, trial could not take place. The fact remains that in view of the Covid-19 pandemic, for about two years, trials in courts below have stalled. The alleged offences are grievous in nature and the same cause loss to the exchequer of the State. In view of the same, this Court feels that it is not a fit case where this Court can interfere with the proceedings, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. 9. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram is directed to dispose of Sessions Case No. 115 of 2018 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 9. The Criminal Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bhimavaram is directed to dispose of Sessions Case No. 115 of 2018 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The petitioner/A.4 and other accused are directed to co-operate with the Court below for disposal of the case. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.