JUDGMENT : Prashant Kumar, J. In this writ application the petitioners prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Protest Complaint Case no. 229/2014, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. The petitioners further prayed for quashing the order dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure-2), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, took cognizance against the petitioners under sections 406/420/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that the Complainant (Respondent no.2) initially filed a Complaint Case against the petitioners vide Complaint Case no. 1530 of 2013, which was sent to the Gonda Police Station, for registration of F.I.R. and investigation, under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. Accordingly, Gonda P.S. Case no. 283/2013 registered and the police took up investigation. It further appears that after completing the investigation, police submitted final form in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the Complainant filed Protest Petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, which was registered as Protest Complaint Case no. 259/2014 and who after inquiry took cognizance of the offence under sections 406/420/323/504/34 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners vide order dated 12.01.2015. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, as alleged in the Complaint Petition are that the Complainant, being the owner of a land, entered into a Development Agreement with petitioner no.2. It is then alleged that after completion of the construction work, the Complainant had demanded 05(five) flats with car parking, as per the agreement. It is stated that in the agreement, both the parties had agreed that the complainant will get 34% of the Total Super Built-up Area. It is alleged that the accused persons refused to give 05(five) flats, unless the Complainant pay Rs. 70,00,000/-. It is further alleged that for resolving the aforesaid dispute, a meeting fixed in the office of the accused persons on 11.06.2013. It is further alleged that when the Complainant along with her husband and others went to attend the said meeting, the accused persons along with others again demanded Rs. 70,00,000/- as extortion for giving complainant's share. It is further alleged that when the Complainant raised objection, the accused persons abused and threatened them. Thereafter, the petitioner no.2 took signature of the Complainant and her husband on a blank non-judicial stamp paper, on the point of revolver. 70,00,000/- as extortion for giving complainant's share. It is further alleged that when the Complainant raised objection, the accused persons abused and threatened them. Thereafter, the petitioner no.2 took signature of the Complainant and her husband on a blank non-judicial stamp paper, on the point of revolver. It is alleged that on the said paper accused persons prepared receipt showing that the physical possession of 05(five) flats with car parking had been handed over to the Complainant and now she have no claim. It is stated that when the Complainant, her husband and others tried to leave the place, petitioner no.2 caught hold the hands of the Complainant and pushed her on the chair, whereas other accused persons assaulted the Complainant's husband. 4. As noticed above, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi after making inquiry, took cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 12.01.2015 only under sections 406/420/323/504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It is submitted by Sri Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case by the Complainant for Wreaking Vengeance due to private and personal grudge. It is submitted that for the dispute raised in the Complaint Petition, as well as in the counter affidavit complainant had filed Misc. Case no. 20/2012 in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi, but the same was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi vide order 30.03.2013. It is stated that against the aforesaid order of the learned Sub-Judge, complainant filed writ application in this Court vide W.P. (C) No. 2898/2013, which is still pending. It is further submitted that for the same set of facts and disputes, complainant filed an application in this Court vide Arbitration Application no.07/2013, in which this Court vide order dated 10.01.2014 appointed Hon'ble Justice D.G.R. Patnaik, a former Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator. It is submitted that the aforesaid arbitration proceeding is still pending for resolving the disputes between the parties. It is submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, the present Complaint Petition filed with a view to pressurise the petitioners to accept illegal demands made by the Complainant and her husband. Accordingly, it is submitted that continuance of present criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court, therefore, liable to be quashed. 6. It is submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid proceeding, the present Complaint Petition filed with a view to pressurise the petitioners to accept illegal demands made by the Complainant and her husband. Accordingly, it is submitted that continuance of present criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court, therefore, liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for the Complainant/ Respondent no.2 submitted that as per the Development Agreement, the Complainant handed over the land along with the structure to the petitioners on good faith on the condition that after completion of the building, 34% of the Super Built-up area will be handed over to the Complainant and till then petitioner no.2 will pay rent for the alternative accommodation. It is further submitted that petitioner no.2 is not paying the rent. It is then submitted that as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.09.2008, petitioners were required to give 05(five) flats to the Complainant, but later on it was found that area of the 05 flats does not constitute 34% of the total Super Built-up Area, because the Complainant is entitled to get 732 Sq.feet more as per the Development Agreement. But the petitioners were asking the Complainant to pay Rs. 70,00,000/- for the aforesaid area. When the Complainant refused to pay the aforesaid amount, the petitioners with their men committed the present crime. Accordingly, it is submitted that the offences enumerated in the order taking cognizance are made out, hence, this writ application is liable to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions of the parties, I have gone through the records of the case. 8. From perusal of the facts narrated in the Complaint Petition, Counter affidavit, writ application and the supplementary affidavit, I find that the dispute between the parties relates to implementation of Development Agreement. It appears that for the same dispute, the Complainant filed Misc. Case no. 20/2012 before the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi. The aforesaid Misc. Case dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi vide order dated 30.03.2013 (Annexure-12). Thereafter, the Complaint filed a writ application in this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 2898/2013, which is still pending. It is worth mentioning that again, the Complainant filed Arbitration Application no. 07/2013 in this Court, for appointment of an Arbitrator, for resolving the disputes arising out of the interpretation of the Development Agreement dated 09.07.2007. Thereafter, the Complaint filed a writ application in this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 2898/2013, which is still pending. It is worth mentioning that again, the Complainant filed Arbitration Application no. 07/2013 in this Court, for appointment of an Arbitrator, for resolving the disputes arising out of the interpretation of the Development Agreement dated 09.07.2007. It appears that a Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2014(Annexure-14) has appointed Hon'ble Justice D.G.R. Patnaik, a former Judge of this Court as an Arbitrator. It appears that the learned Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 04.07.2014 had framed altogether 16 issues. From perusal of the aforesaid issues, I find that all the points raised in the Complaint Petition as well as the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2 is pending before him for adjudication. 9. It is worth mentioning that initially, the Complaint Petition filed on 05.07.2013, after dismissal of Misc. Case no. 20/2012. From perusal of the order passed in Misc. Case it appears that the complainant had raised similar plea. Thus, I find that the Complainant filed present criminal case after loosing the civil litigation filed before the Sub-Judge-I, Ranchi. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in "Chandrapal Singh and Others Vs. Maharaj Singh and Another" reported in (1992)1 SCC-466 that "A frustrated landlord after having met his waterloo in the hierarchy of civil courts, has further enmeshed the tenant in a frivolous criminal prosecution, which prima facie appears to be an abuse of the process of law ............................." 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others, reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC-335, has held that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, then the criminal proceeding cannot continue. 11. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thermax Limited and others Vs. K.M. Johny and others reported in (2011)13 SCC-412 that if the dispute between the parties has flavour of civil nature, the same can not be adjudicated in the form of criminal proceeding. 12. Admittedly, for resolution of the dispute between the parties arising out of the Development Agreement, a civil writ is pending in this Court. K.M. Johny and others reported in (2011)13 SCC-412 that if the dispute between the parties has flavour of civil nature, the same can not be adjudicated in the form of criminal proceeding. 12. Admittedly, for resolution of the dispute between the parties arising out of the Development Agreement, a civil writ is pending in this Court. It is also an admitted fact that for resolution of same sets of dispute, an arbitration proceeding is pending, that too at the instance of Complainant. Under the said circumstance, in my view, continuation of the present criminal proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court. 13. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above, I allow this writ application and quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Protest Complaint Case no. 229/2014, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi along with the order dated 12.01.2015 (Annexure-2), whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance against the petitioners under sections 406/420/323/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Application allowed.