Kalidas Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This is an application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings of Purulia (Town) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2009 dated 21.8.2009 under Ss. 420/406/468/469/323/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bearing G.R. Case No. 701 of 2009 now pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia.
(2.) The case of the petitioners, in short, is that the respondent No. 2 has filed a petition of complaint in the Court of learned C.J.M., Purulia alleging, inter alia, that the complainant is a retired Government employee and a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. On 12.12.2008 the petitioner who is a member of the higher community, sold a plot of land to the complainant measuring 73.5 decimals in RS plot Nos. 161, 162 & 259 comprised in RS Khatian Nos. 1157and 1186 situated at Mouza Purulia, JL No. 292/2 by executing a registered deed of sale bearing No. 5591 in the year 2009 at a consideration of Rs. 24,98,180/ -. Payment was made by cheques/bank drafts. It has been alleged that at the time of sale the petitioner explicitly stated that the land appertaining to RS plot No. 161 measuring 66 decimals and RS plot No. 162 measuring 03 decimals was mutated in his name vide mutation Case No. 350/2004 at the office of the BL & LRO, Purulia - I. It was also stated that the land was free from all encumbrances. After the sale deed was registered, the complainant submitted an application on 02.01.2009 before the BL & LRO for getting his name mutated in place of the petitioner. During the hearing of the Mutation Case bearing No. 7 of 2009 in the office of the BL & LRO, Purulia - I it could be learnt from the records that only 28.5 decimals of land out of 66 decimals in RS plot No. 161 comprised in RS Khatian No. 1157 was recorded in the name of the petitioner and, as such, the seller was the owner of 28.5 decimals of land in respect of the said plot, although, at the time of sale he represented that he was the owner of 66 decimals of land. It has been alleged that in connivance with the staff of the B.L. & L.R.O., Purulia - I the accused obtained rent receipt for 66 decimals of land in his name with the intent to cheat the complainant. It has further been alleged that the complainant thereafter visited the house cum office of the petitioner on 30.6.2009 and requested the petitioner herein to refund the excess amount of money taken by him towards the illegal sale of 37.5 decimals of land. It has been alleged that the petitioner herein became very much agitated, aggressive and shouted at the top of the voice and abused him in derogatory manner touching his caste and threatened him with dire consequences. It is also alleged that the petitioner assaulted the complainant with fist and blows. The complainant filed a complaint before the learned C.J.M., Purulia which was sent to the P.S. under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the letter written by the complainant to the S.P. there is no allegation that the petitioner herein made derogatory remarks touching the caste of the complainant. It is contended that the petitioner herein delivered his title deed to the complainant at the time of sale. It is submitted that there is no averment in the complaint that from the very beginning there was an intention on the part of this petitioner to cheat the complainant. The learned Counsel contends that there is no manner of application of Sec. 406 of the I.P.C. in the circumstances of the case as there was no entrustment and there was no misappropriation. It is contended that as per allegation contained in the complaint, the interpolation or subsequent insertion was made prior to the registration of the deed and that the complaint was lodged after the lapse of about eight months from the date of sale. It is contended that the provision of Sec. 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not applicable, inasmuch as, as per the allegation, the complainant went to the office of the petitioner and in the absence of any member of the public it cannot be said that the complainant was humiliated in the view of the public. The learned Counsel has referred to and cited the decisions reported in : JT 2008(9) SC 543 [Gorige Pentaiah v/s. State of A.P. and Ors.]; : JT 2008(9) SC 60 [Swaran Singh and Ors. v/s. State through Standing Counsel and Anr.];, 2009(2) C.Cr.L.R. Cal 73 [Rajat Kumar Bandyopadhyay v/s. The State of West Bengal and Anr.]; the judgment of unreported decision in CRR 2137 of 2009 [Radha Biswas and Ors. v/s. The State of West Bengal] of this Court, : 2006(4) CHN 719 [Amar Nath Bhattacharya v/s. Prasenjit Kumar Bose and Anr.];, (2008)2 C.Cr.L.R. Cal 138 [Shri Ram Nath Poddar and Ors. v/s. State of West Bengal and Ors.] and, 2002 SCC Cri 129 [S.W. Palanitkar and Ors. v/s. State of Bihar and Anr.].;