- (1.) This is an application under Sections 397/401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for quashing the proceeding being No. C-3256 of 2006 dated 21.04.2006 of the Shakespeare Sarani P.S. FIR No. 201 dated 18.06.2006 under Sections 120B/420/406/467/468/471 of the I.P.C. pending before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
(2.) The petitioners are the accused persons in the complaint case lodged by the opposite party No. 2. The allegations of the opposite party No. 2 is that in October, 2003 he booked a flat and a covered car parking space at Rabindrapally, P.O. Krishnapur at a cost of Rs. 17,51,000/-. An agreement was executed for that purpose. The opposite party No. 2 paid full payment and he was put in possession of the flat by the petitioners. But when the opposite party No. 2 asked the petitioners to make registration of the flat in his favour, the petitioners did not agree and began to pass times on one plea or other. The flat was booked showing measurement 1622 sq. ft. But, actually when the delivery was made it was found that the covered area was only to the extent of 1343 sq. ft. Though the petitioners took price for 1622 sq. ft. built up area. Thus, the opposite party No. 2 was cheated. So he filed the petition of complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who sent the said petition of complaint to the concerned P.S. under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. The petitioners have come up for quashing the said proceeding on the ground that no prima facie case was made out in the petition of complaint.
(3.) Mr. Farhauddin has submitted that dispute between the parties, if any, is purely a civil dispute and it does not give rise any cause of action to lodge a criminal proceeding. Possession of the flat has been delivered to the opposite party No. 2 and he is enjoying the same. As per agreement, the deed of conveyance is to be done by the learned lawyer of the company of the petitioners and none else and for that reason a specific amount of money was to be claimed as per agreement and the intending buyer is bound to follow such agreements. The petitioners asked the opposite party No. 2 time and again to complete the same by having a registered deed through the appointed lawyer of the petitioners but he did not co-operate. So for non-execution of any deed in favour of the opposite party No. 2, the petitioners could not be blamed. Therefore, the proceeding should be quashed.;