JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties are present. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For quashing of the order dated 09.07.2012, whereby Hon’ble Lokayukta has passed an adverse order on the face of record of frivolous and personal complaint lodged by Respondent No. 5, wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions incorporated under Section 8(a) and (b) of Jharkhand Lokayukta Act 2000 without considering the fact that money suit/enquiry under Income Tax Act and Complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, is going on identical subjects of this complaint petition and the parties are also same and the order impugned has been passed without any service of investigation report and copy of the complaint petition prejudicing the defence of the petitioner and further prays for restraining the Respondent No. 2 to act upon the order dated 09.07.2012.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the impugned order passed in the present case, one F.I.R. was instituted in connection with Special (A.C.B.) Case No. 16 of 2013, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 15 of 2013 dated 08.05.2013 registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(ii) read with Section 13 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in which charge sheet has been submitted and the petitioner is on bail. He has further submitted that since the charge sheet has been submitted, he is apprehensive that the authorities may not be influenced/prejudiced by the impugned order of the present case. 4. At this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the before instituting F.I.R. in the vigilance P.S. Case, the necessary preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department and thereafter the F.I.R. was registered. He has further submitted that criminal case or any proceeding pursuant to the impugned order will be taken care of on the basis of materials collected during investigation and the impugned order passed in the present case has no bearing in the adjudication of the proceedings. 5. At this counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if appropriate observation is made by this court that the criminal case will be decided on its own merit and on the basis of materials collected during investigation and the criminal case may not be prejudiced by the impugned order. 6. 5. At this counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if appropriate observation is made by this court that the criminal case will be decided on its own merit and on the basis of materials collected during investigation and the criminal case may not be prejudiced by the impugned order. 6. To this, learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objection. He submits that criminal case will be decided on the basis of materials collected during investigation. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the limited submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties this court finds that much water has flown after passing of the impugned order and criminal case has already been instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner is on bail. It is not in dispute that charge sheet in the criminal case has already been filed. 8. In such circumstances, it is sufficient to observe that criminal case will be decided on its own merit and will not be influenced/prejudiced by the impugned order passed in the present case. In view of the aforesaid limited submission, there is no occasion to go into merit or otherwise of the case of the petitioner. 9. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. 10. Pending I.A. if any, is closed.