K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE Petitioners are aggrieved by an inquiry sough to be undertaken by the third Respondent on a complaint from the fourth Respondent that the Petitioners had by fraudulent representations and false affidavit, secured allotments of property under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The fact that the Petitioners have been issued allotment orders under the above Act itself is not in dispute. The fifth Respondent as a Petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking for directions that some allotments made under the Act were fraudulent and seeking for cancellation of such allotments. A Division Bench of this Court had passed an order directing an adjudication to be undertaken before the competent authority under the Act to examine the contentions raised by the fifth Respondent, who was the Petitioner in the writ petition and had directed the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, respectively, to examine the case with reference to the validity of the allotments and take decisions in according with law. The order specifically reserves right to anyone aggrieved party to prefer appeals and seek appropriate redressal in accordance with law. 2 Consequent on the directions given by the Division Bench, it appears that the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have upheld the decision already taken by the authorities and confirmed the allotment made in favour of the Petitioners. Fifth Respondent, who has been aggrieved, has preferred appeals to the competent authorities and admittedly they are pending. Simultaneously, with the proceedings before the authorities, fifth Respondent has given a complaint again to the Director General of Police taking up this very same issue of allotment and urging that these allotments have been made on fraudulent averments relating to their entitlement and false affidavits. The issues which are subject of litigation before the authorities regarding entitlement of the allotment is brought again for an inquiry before the Director General of Police and this is the grievance of the Petitioners requiring the Courts intervention. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the fifth Respondent contends that the complaint made against the Petitioners constitute criminal offences which would be inquired independently of any adjudication that could be given by the authorities under the Act. The incident relates to alleged false affidavits and fraudulent representations said to have been made before the allotments in the year 2006. Although the proceedings relating to criminal offences could go simultaneously with any civil right that a person asserts. I am convinced that in this case, the fifth Respondent is only trying to open the very same issues that are brought before the authorities by giving it a colour of criminal complaint by making references to "false affidavit and fraudulent statements". There are enough precedents that there is nothing inherently wrong about prosecution of both civil and criminal law remedies. The issue has come about in matrimonial proceeding for divorce in civil court and for offences of cruelty in criminal court; in probate proceedings and criminal action for forgery and proceedings for recovery of money through civil suit and prosecution for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. There is however, no hard and fast rule of what should gain primacy. Although, the Petitioners in the normal circumstances, could have proper remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure itself, they would be still justified in seeking remedy under writ jurisdiction, if there is an attempted misuse of the legal process. Such an attempt, in my view would require to be quelled. 4 The issue before the fourth Respondent shall be, therefore, examined strictly to see whether there is any criminal element involved for undertaking such an adjudication and if, such a definite satisfaction is recorded, the fourth Respondent shall carry through investigation in accordance with law. The matter is, therefore, left with the fourth Respondent himself to examine the complaint and the Petitioners shall be protected from being unnecessarily harassed on the same issue which is the subject of adjudication before the authorities constituted under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act. The prayer for stopping the enquiry before the fourth Respondent shall not be a proper relief. At best, the Petitioners shall also be at liberty to explain any of the actions through representation to support the contentions and point out as to how the complained by the fifth Respondent has no element of criminal offence in the case. 5. The writ petition is disposed of subject to observations made above.;