SHIB SADHAN SADHU, J. - (1.) THE petitioner by means of the present petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C. for the sake of brevity), seeks to quash the entire proceedings including the charge -sheet of G.R.Case No.2612 of 2013 under Sections 420/506 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.
(2.) A written complaint was lodged by the complainant Kanchan Dey (O.P. No.2 herein) against the present petitioner Saikat Sarkhel on 12.04.2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 420/506 IPC in the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. That complaint was sent to the O.C., Santragachi P.S. for investigation and on receipt of that complaint Santragachi P.S. Case No.16/13 dated 12.04.2013 under Sections 420/506 IPC was started and investigation was taken up. After completion of investigation a chargesheet was submitted against the present petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 420/406 of the IPC. Feeling aggrieved against the same, the present Revisional Application was filed by the petitioner.
(3.) AS per the written complaint the complainant/O.P. No.2 came in contact with the accused petitioner who showed one old one -storied house, opposite to Baksara High School and described the same as his own property. The complainant liked it and wanted to buy it. The sale value of the said property was fixed at Rs.19,00,000/ - (Rupees Nineteen lacs) only as per oral agreement between the parties on 29.08.2012 and an advance of Rs.21,000/ - was paid and accepted on that very date. Thereafter on 02.09.2012 a 'Bainapatra' was executed in respect of that 1(one) Katha 12 Chittaks 30 Sq. ft. land with building standing thereon comprised within the Mouza -Uttar Baksara, Khatian No.1015 (Hal 4492), Dag No.793 (Hal 1734), P.S. Jagacha (Hal Santragachi P.S.) District: Howrah. The accused received further advance of Rs.2,50,000/ - (Two lacs fifty thousand) on that date. On 03.09.2012 the accused took Rs.1,00,000/ - more from the complainant as advance making endorsement on the reverse of the 'Baina Patra'. On 12.09.2012 he again took Rs.75,000/ - (Seventy Five thousand) by cheque No.719382 drawn on UBI, Jagacha, Howrah from the complainant after making endorsement on the 'Bainapatra'. On 21.09.2012 he again took Rs.1,00,000/ - from the complainant in cash as further advance but he refused to give any receipt or make any endorsement. In total, the accused took Rs.5,46,000/ - from the complainant for selling the aforesaid house property. But thereafter the accused neither completed the sale transaction nor did he return the advanced money and took time on some false pretext. Being suspicious the complainant made search of the settlement records and other documents and it was revealed that the house shown by the accused does not stand on khatian No.4492, Dag No.1734 and that the land measures only one Katha. Thus, it was clear that the accused intentionally committed fraud by making false statement to the complainant and cheated him in respect of Rs.5,46,000/ - and misappropriated the same for his personal and illegal gain. When the complainant demanded refund of his money, the accused started threatening him of murder and assault. The complainant lodged information over the matter in Santragachi P.S. on 03.04.2013 but only a G.D. Entry being No.105/ 13 dated 03.04.2013 was recorded. Mr. Pratik Majumder, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argued that the allegation levelled against the petitioner does not constitute any offence under Sections 406/420 IPC. He further contended that subsequent to the execution of the Agreement for Sale the petitioner executed the sale deed in respect of the land and property measuring about 1 Katha 12 Chittaks which was proposed to be sold by the petitioner in favour of the O.P. No.2. The sale deed was executed on 24th September, 2012 and the O.P. No.2 has been in possession of that land and he has also mutated his name in the Record of Rights and after the lapse of nine(9) months, the O.P. No.2 lodged the complaint alleging cheating and misappropriation of Rs.5,46,000/ - on the basis of a concocted story that the petitioner/accused did not complete the sale transaction. He contended yet further that the charge -sheet has been submitted without making any comment as to the genuineness and correctness of the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the O.P. No.2 on 24th September, 2012. According to him dispute, if any, is substantially a civil dispute and the instant criminal case has been launched only to put pressure upon the petitioner for some wrongful gain and to tarnish his reputation in the society. He thus concludingly submitted that the institution of the criminal proceeding and its continuation is a sheer abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.;