JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. Aggrieved by notices issued to the petitioners seeking refund of Rs.45,000/- released to them for construction of house under the “Indira Awas Scheme”, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners claiming themselves members of BPL families were granted benefit under the “Indira Awas Scheme”, on the recommendation of the local Mukhiya/M.L.A. The total grant under the Scheme for construction of house was Rs.45,000/-, out of which the first installment of Rs.22,500/- was disbursed on the report submitted by the Block Extension Agricultural Officer. It is stated that after supervision by the Block Extension Agricultural Officer and the Panchayat Sewak regarding construction of 2/3 rooms, the balance amount was paid to the petitioners. The letter dated 24.08.2013 was issued to the petitioner no.1 on the allegation that he portrayed previously constructed 6 rooms as new construction/additional construction under the Scheme. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to letter dated 02.11.2013 and report dated 14.08.2013, submits that the direction for registration of a criminal case and for instituting a recovery proceeding against the petitioners is unwarranted. It is further submitted that the grant under the Scheme to the petitioners does not fall under the definition of “Public demand” under Section 3(6) of the Bihar and Orissa (Public Demands Recovery) Act, 1914 and therefore, the recovery proceeding cannot be initiated against the petitioners. 4. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned G.A. submits that an enquiry is in progress in the matter and if it is found that certain persons falsely claimed themselves as beneficiaries, a criminal case can be lodged against such persons. 5. Insofar as, recovery of Rs.45,000/- from the petitioners is concerned, I am of the opinion that registration of a criminal case for recovery would amount to misuse of the process of law. For ensuring recovery of Rs.45,000/- given as grant to the petitioners under the “Indira Awas Scheme”, a criminal case cannot be lodged. However, if it is found that for availing the benefit under the Scheme certain persons have committed offence, FIR can be lodged. Insofar as, initiating recovery proceeding against the petitioners is concerned, the direction contained in the notices issued to the petitioners does not warrant interference by this Court. However, if it is found that for availing the benefit under the Scheme certain persons have committed offence, FIR can be lodged. Insofar as, initiating recovery proceeding against the petitioners is concerned, the direction contained in the notices issued to the petitioners does not warrant interference by this Court. The petitioners at the time of availing grant under the Scheme have submitted an undertaking whereunder, they have consented for recovery of Rs.45,000/- as loan granted to them. The petitioners however, would be at liberty to file objection under Section 9 raising the defence as available to them in law besides, relying on letter dated 02.11.2013 and the report dated 14.08.2013. 6. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The direction contained in notice dated 25.11.2013 insofar as, registration of criminal case for recovery of Rs.45,000/- is concerned, is quashed.