JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint No.2154 of 2013, including the order taking cognizance dated 18.11.2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 2. The O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint alleging therein that the complaint No.2154 of 2013 has been filed by the complainant against the present petitioner under section 323/327/341/406/420/506 of the IPC. The grievance of the O.P.No.2 was that the complainant, Samir Kumar Chakraborty and nine others, who are brothers, sisters and mother of the complainant had entered into a development agreement with the present petitioner on 27.1.2004 for developing the land of the complainant and his family members for measuring an area of 20 katthas being khata no.20, plot no.735, mouza-Kokar, town and district Ranchi. As per the terms of the said agreement dated 27.01.2004, the accused had to construct the entire building within a period of 24 months from the date of sanction of the map by the competent authority. The map was sanctioned on 8.10.2005, so far as Block B of the apartment was concerned. The petitioner had to complete the same by 8.10.2007. Similarly the map for Block A of the apartment was sanctioned on 6.3.2007 and therefore the petitioner had to complete the entire construction of the building by 6.3.2009. Further case of the opposite party no.2 was that the petitioner had to complete the entire construction of the building by 6.3.2009. As per the O.P.No.2 the petitioner did not complete the construction of the building within the stipulated period as per the development agreement dated 27.1.2004. Further case of the O.P.No.2 is that the building was neither constructed nor the possession was handed over to the complainant and his family members as the building was not constructed in time. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that this is a case arising out of a development agreement and the petitioner is a builder whereas the O.P.No.2 is the owner. He submits that pursuant to the development agreement, the petitioner has developed the land in question and there is some delay in completion of the project for 13 months which has been admitted in the complaint petition for which this case has been filed and the learned court has taken cognizance. 4. He submits that pursuant to the development agreement, the petitioner has developed the land in question and there is some delay in completion of the project for 13 months which has been admitted in the complaint petition for which this case has been filed and the learned court has taken cognizance. 4. The learned counsel for the O.P.no.2 submits that this is a case arising out of an agreement. He submits that the agreement has not been fulfilled and that was necessitated to file the complaint and there is allegation in the complaint that the project has not been completed within the stipulated period of time as mentioned in the agreement. 5. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that this is a matter arising out of complaint case and the learned court has taken cognizance. 6. The Court has gone through the materials on record and has also considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties. Looking into the complaint it appears that in the complaint itself it has been admitted that the allocation of share it was to be handed over by 08.10.2007 which was done on 05.12.2008 i.e. after delay of 13 months and for this, the complaint case has been filed. The case is arising out of development agreement and the claim is completely civil in nature and the O.P.No.2 had either to file the case for specific performance of contract or to raise the case of deficiency in service by way of raising the complaint before the competent District Consumer Forum and inspite of doing so, the O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint. The case is completely civil in nature and for that criminal case has been filed and to allow this matter to continue will amount to abuse of process of law. 7. Accordingly, entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint No.2154 of 2013, including the order taking cognizance dated 18.11.2014, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi is quashed. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merit of civil litigation if any and if it is pending, that will be decided in accordance of law without prejudice to this order. 9. Cr.M.P. No.1831 of 2016 stands allowed and disposed of. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 11. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.