ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. 2. In this application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 105 of 2008 including the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, whereby and whereunder, cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467, 368, 471 and 120B I.P.C. has been taken. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no criminal offence is made out from the complaint petition itself. It has been further submitted that the issue with respect to the allotment of quarter in question to one Rajni Kant Pandey has already been decided in W.P. (C) No. 3935 of 2007 instituted by the opposite party No. 2. The order passed in W.P. (C) No. 3935 of 2007 has been upheld in L.P.A. No. 32 of 2013. Learned counsel submits that since the subject matter of the complaint petition is with respect to non-allotment of the quarter in question to the opposite party No. 2 and allotting the same to one Rajni Kant Pandey has already been considered by the writ court, the criminal proceeding instituted again the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand has stated that the order passed by the writ court will not have any effect to the criminal proceedings as the act of the petitioners of accepting the arrears of rent and subsequently allotting the quarter in question to one Rajni Kant Pandey would itself entail the prosecution of the petitioners. He therefore submits that this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. From allegation made in the complaint, it appears that the opposite party No. 2 was the permanent employee of M/s Zenith Forgings Limited, Industrial Area, Adityapur. He therefore submits that this application is liable to be dismissed. 5. From allegation made in the complaint, it appears that the opposite party No. 2 was the permanent employee of M/s Zenith Forgings Limited, Industrial Area, Adityapur. Since the opposite party No. 2 applied for allotment of a residential quarter at Adityapur with due recommendation of his employer M/s Zenith Forgings Limited, subsequently the Jharkhand State Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) had taken a decision to allot the house No. 122/2/1 to the opposite party No. 2, if the entire arrears of rent which had accrued on account of the house being in possession of Jamshedpur Consumer Cooperative Store be paid. The complainant states that the entire arrears of rent pertaining to said house amounting to Rs. 4479.32 was deposited with the Board and the said house was allotted to the complainant as per decision of the Allotment Committee of the Board. It has been claimed by the complainant that he has regularly deposited the rental amount in respect of the house in question and subsequently he could come to know that the said house has been allotted to one Rajni Kant Pandey, an ex-employee of Jamshedpur Consumer Cooperative Store. The house No. 122/2/1 is meant for employee/workers or employee of the Industrial Unit and Ranji Kant Pandey was never an industrial worker or employee and in fact the Board itself had filed an Eviction Case No. 01/1987 on account of unauthorized occupation of the quarter in question. Despite depositing of arrears of rent amount and making regular payment of rent to the Board, the documents were not supplied to the complainant and in a very surreptitious manner the quarter in question was allotted to one Rajni Kant Pandey. Based on the aforesaid allegation C/1 Case No. 105/2008 was instituted in which after conducting an enquiry, cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467, 368, 471 and 120B I.P.C. vide order dated 23.09.2008. 6. The allegation in the complaint petition is primarily concentrated with respect to the fact that in spite of allotting the quarter in question to the complainant, the same was subsequently allotted to one Rajni Kant Pandey. 6. The allegation in the complaint petition is primarily concentrated with respect to the fact that in spite of allotting the quarter in question to the complainant, the same was subsequently allotted to one Rajni Kant Pandey. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner annexing a copy of the orders passed in W.P. (C) No. 3935 of 2007 and L.P.A. No. 32 of 2013. The opposite party No. 2 being aggrieved with the decision of the Board allotting the quarter in question to Rajni Kant Pandey had approached the writ court for redressal of his grievance in W.P. (C) No. 3935 of 2007. The said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2012 and it was held therein that there was no reason to interfere in the allotment of the said house to the respondent No. 4 (Rajni Kant Pandey) in the year 1996 for which hire purchase agreement was executed in the year 2001 and final deed has been executed in the year 2011. The aforesaid order passed by the writ court was affirmed in L.P.A. No. 32 of 2013 vide order dated 27.01.2014. The finding given by the writ court therefore conveniently lays to rest the allegation as contained in the complaint petition. 7. Although the learned counsel for the opposite party o. 2 has vehemently stated that the orders passed by the writ court will not have any bearing in the criminal case instituted by the opposite party No. 2, but the factual aspects of the matter as averred in the complaint petition if juxtaposed would clearly reveal that the dispute was primarily concentrated with respect to the fact that in spite of allotting the quarter in question to the complainant, the same was subsequently allotted to one Rajni Kant Pandey, which was the subject of challenge before the writ court by the opposite party No. 2. The writ court as well as the appellate court had refused to interfere with respect to the decision taken by the Board for allotment of quarter in question to Rajni Kant Pandey and the grievance of the opposite party no. 2 in the complaint petition is also with respect to the said fact albeit trying to give a criminal colour to the act of the Board in allotting the quarter to Rajni Kant Pandey. 8. 2 in the complaint petition is also with respect to the said fact albeit trying to give a criminal colour to the act of the Board in allotting the quarter to Rajni Kant Pandey. 8. The factual aspect as enumerated above and the averment made in the complaint petition do not make out a criminal offence against the petitioners. In such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of the court and miscarriage of justice. 9. In view of what has been stated above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 105 of 2008 including the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella, whereby and whereunder, cognizance for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420, 467, 368, 471 and 120B I.P.C. has been taken, is hereby quashed and set aside. Application Allowed.