Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of F.I.R. No. 06 of 2016, dated 19.07.2016, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d)(ii), 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C.Act) at Police Station State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau (SV and ACB), Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. and the consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Municipal Committee, Dharamshala, H.P., had resolved to purchase 20 large and 25 small containers with lids. Chaman Lal, Executive Officer (E.O) and Jitender Kumar, Sanitary Supervisor (SS), purchased the containers from the petitioner Rajesh Kakkar in violation of the rules. The Director, Urban Development, conducted a preliminary inquiry. The Inquiry Committee concluded that there was a violation of Financial Rules and Procedure regarding the purchase of the stores. After examining the Preliminary Inquiry Report, it was found that there was no need to purchase the obsolete waste bin because Dharamshala, Sundernagar and Paonta Sahib were selected for the installation of underground waste bins. The Urban Development Department had introduced e-tendering for all the works, but in the present case, this process was not adopted. Even the procedure for the procurement of articles in an offline mode was not followed. The elected house had not resolved to call the quotation, and the supply order was issued without mentioning the items to be procured. Hence, it was requested that an action be taken. SV&ACB conducted the investigation and found that the accused had conspired to purchase the containers worth ₹1,45,51,040/-. An F.I.R. was registered, and the documents were seized. It was found that the Committee had not resolved to buy the containers, and this was introduced by Lalit Kumar on his own. There were grave irregularities in the purchase of the bins. The petitioner was actively involved, and his signature tallied with the disputed signatures. The petitioner had submitted the forged quotations of two firms; hence, a charge sheet was filed before the Court.

3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the F.I.R. and filing of the charge-sheet, the present petition has been filed asserting that the Vigilance Department has taken 8 years for the investigation, which violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. The continuation of the proceedings amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. The prosecution has cited 49 witnesses, and their examination would take a long time. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R and consequential proceedings arising from the F.I.R. be quashed.

4. I have heard Mr Virender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State.

5. Mr Virender Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial is being violated. The trial has not started despite the lapse of 10 years from the date of the incident. The prosecution has cited 49 witnesses, and the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the F.I.R. and consequential proceedings be quashed.

6. Mr Lokender Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that a voluminous record has to be examined and the forensic analysis has to be carried out in corruption cases. Hence, some delay is inevitable in such cases. There is no inordinate delay in the present case. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

7. I have given considerable thought to his submission and have gone through the records carefully.

8. The present petition has been filed for quashing the