ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Notice was issued to the complainant-O.P. No. 2, which is returned unserved with the endorsement that the complainant is dead. 3. This application has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding, including the order dated 6.8.2005, passed by Sri B.B. Gautam, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 779 of 2005, whereby prima facie offence has been found to be made out against the petitioner and the other co-accused persons under Sections 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. From perusal of the record, it appears that a complaint case No. 779 of 2005 was filed by the complainant-O.P. No. 2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, alleging that the complainant and his son had taken on rent 1 acre and 1 acre and 14 ½ decimals of land respectively, from the other co-accused Raj Kumar Agarwal and he established coke industry on the said land. Said Raj Kumar Agarwal had taken loan from S.B.I., Bank More, Dhanbad, with respect to the said property and there was a proceeding for recovery of the loan in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in which the order was passed against Raj Kumar Agarwal and the said property was put on auction sale. The co-accused Raj Kumar Jain purchased the property in auction sale, as is apparent from the complaint petition itself. Thereafter it is alleged that the purchaser, along with other accused persons, including the petitioner, with the help of the police forcibly entered into the premises and committed theft therein. There are other allegations against the other co-accused persons in the complaint petition, but so far as this petitioner is concerned, it is only alleged that this petitioner had committed theft of the property along with the purchaser, who purchased the property in the auction sale. 5. It appears that the statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation and some witnesses were examined in the enquiry stage and prima facie offence was found against the petitioner as well. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against the purchaser co-accused Raj Kumar Jain has already been quashed by this Court by a detailed order dated 21.2.2013 in Cr. Rev. No. 679 of 2009. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire criminal proceeding against the purchaser co-accused Raj Kumar Jain has already been quashed by this Court by a detailed order dated 21.2.2013 in Cr. Rev. No. 679 of 2009. It is also submitted that only allegation against this petitioner is that he had entered into the premises along with the said co-accused and committed theft, and the entire criminal proceeding against him has already been quashed. Accordingly, it is a fit case for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against this petitioner also. 7. Learned counsel for the State though has opposed the prayer, but it is admitted that the criminal proceeding against Raj Kumar Jain, the purchaser of the auctioned property has already been quashed by this Court. 8. In the facts of this case, it is apparent that the criminal proceeding against other co-accused, against whom there is similar allegation, has already been quashed. Accordingly, it is a fit case for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against this petitioner as well. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 6.8.2005 passed by Sri B.B. Gautam, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 779 of 2005 is, hereby, set aside and the entire criminal proceeding in C.P. Case No. 779 of 2005, so far as this petitioner is concerned, is hereby, quashed. 10. This application is, accordingly, allowed. 11. Let this order be communicated to the Court concerned through 'FAX' at the cost of the petitioner.