ORDER By Court: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 2. The petitioners have filed this application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them in connection with C/1 Case No. 669 of 2000 including the 1st order dated 7.8.2000 passed therein, by learned Judicial Magistrate Class, Jamshedpur, whereby, prima facie case was found against the petitioners for the offence under Section 406/420 of IPC and process was ordered to be issued against them, as also, the order dated 21.8.2000, whereby N.B. Warrants were ordered to be issued against them. 3. It appears that the O.P. No. 2 Samit Sen Gupta had filed the complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur which was registered as C/1 Case No. 669 of 2000. From perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that the case relates to booking of flat by the complainant from these petitioners for which money was advanced, but the construction of the flat was being delayed. It also appears from perusal of the complaint petition itself, that the flat was to be completed in all respects before 8.7.1998 but till 14.10.1998, only 78 % construction of the flat in question had been made and due to this delay, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below. 4. The complaint petition clearly shows that the complaint was filed against the petitioners, who were the builders of the flat, only due to the fact that even after two years from the due date of the delivery, the flat was only under construction. After enquiry, by the impugned order dated 7.8.2000, the Court below has found prima facie case against the accused petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from perusal of the complaint petition itself it is apparent that there is only breach of contract between the parties and the case is purely of civil nature. There is no allegation of any criminal action against the petitioners and, as such, it is a fit case in which the entire criminal proceeding should be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has appeared on calls and he has only submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. 7. There is no allegation of any criminal action against the petitioners and, as such, it is a fit case in which the entire criminal proceeding should be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has appeared on calls and he has only submitted that he has no instruction in the matter. 7. In the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly upon going through the complaint petition, I find that the complaint had been filed only for breach of contract between the parties as the construction of the flat was not completed within the agreed date. There is no allegation that the flat was not being constructed, rather it is apparent that the flat was being constructed, but the project was delayed by about two years, due to which the complaint petition was filed. 8. In view of this fact, I am of the considered view that this case is purely of civil nature and the filing of the criminal case against the petitioners is a sheer abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner cannot be maintained in the eyes of law. 9. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the entire criminal proceedings in the complaint case C/1 Case No. 669 of 2000 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, as also the order dated 7.8.2000 passed therein whereby, prima facie case was found against the petitioners for the offence under Section 406/420 of IPC and process was ordered to be issued against them, as also, the order dated 21.8.2000, whereby N.B. Warrants were ordered to be issued against the petitioners, are hereby, quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed.