Dipak Saha Ray, J. - (1.) THE present case arises out of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 118 of 2011 arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 22 of 2011 dated 16.1.2011 under Sections 420/406/120B/447/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipore. The relevant facts of the present case are, in a nutshell, as follows : Opposite party no. 2 herein as defacto complainant filed a petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipore which was sent to the O.C., Kotwali P.S. for investigation after treating that complaint as FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 22 of 2011 dated 16.1.2011 under Sections 420/406/120B/447/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code was started.
(2.) IN the said petition of complaint the defacto complainant has alleged inter alia that on 24.12.2010 accused No. 1 alongwith some miscreants entered into the land of the defacto complainant/petitioner herein and other and informed him that he (accused no. 1/petitioner herein) obtained possession of that land on the basis of an agreement of sale executed by him (defacto -complainant) and other co -sharers of that land on 24.09.2010 in favour of the accused No. 1 and for that purpose accused No. 1 paid Rs. 20,00,000/ - and that the deed of sale in respect of the said land would be executed on payment of the rest amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ -. It is contended in the petition of compliant that the defacto complainant never signed any such agreement; nor did he take any amount of money as advance as alleged and accordingly he informed the matter to the I.C., Kotwali P.S. It is further alleged that on query he also came to know that other co -sharers of the said property neither took any advance nor signed any such agreement of sale. It is accordingly alleged that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Section 420/406/120B/447/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the petitioner that the defacto complainant/O.P. No. 2 has filed the case with an ulterior motive to harass him. It is alleged that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and civil remedies are available. It has also been alleged that the ingredient of offences punishable under Section 420/406/120B/447/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code are also found absent in the contents of the FIR.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defacto complainant/O.P. No. 2 herein in his petition of complaint has never stated that the accused persons dishonestly induced him to deliver any property. In fact, the petition of complaint does not disclose that being entrusted to look after the property, the accused dishonestly transferred that property in his name. The learned counsel has further submitted that no averment has also been made in the petition of complaint disclosing that accused persons threatened the defacto complainant with injury or that he assaulted the defacto complainant. So, the petition of complaint does not disclose any ingredient of offence punishable under Sections 420/406/120B/447/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code.;