DEBI PROSAD DEY,J. - (1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing complaint case no. 65 of 2010(Jahirul Islam Chowdhury Versus Shyamal Roy) pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, District- Birbhum under section 468 of the Indian Penal Code. CRAN being no.419 of 2015 has already been disposed of on 06.06.2016 by the Hon'ble Justice Ranjit Kumar Bag.
(2.) In order to appreciate the case of the parties, it is necessary to state in brief the facts of the case. Opposite party no. 2/Jahirul Islam Chowdhury(herein after referred to as opposite party no.2 only) purchased a plot of land and set up new life nursing home at Nanoor Chandidas Road, (Sian) Post Office- Bolpur, District- Birbhum. A sale deed was executed by opposite party no. 2 on 29th June, 1999 in favour of the petitioner for transferring land measuring about 3600 Sq. Ft. and / or 8.26 decimals situated in Mouja - Khoshkadambapur, bearing J. L. No. 95, R.S Khatian No. 358, Hal Khatian No. 157/1 and 421, Touzi No.11, R S. Dag No. 2799, at Bolpur within District- Birbhum for consideration of rupees 4,00,000/-. It was registered with the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Bolpur, District- Birbhum in book no. 1 volume no. 49 pages 57 to 62 being Deed No. 4269 for the year 1999. The case of the opposite party no.2 is that in fact no such deed was ever executed by opposite party no.2 but the petitioner (Shyamal Kumar Roy), manufactured and forged such document with the left thumb impression of someone else and thereby the petitioner has tried to grab the entire property of the complainant with the help of such forged document. In fact the nursing home of the opposite party no.2 was being operated by the petitioner on payment of some fees but subsequently the petitioner did not tender such fees to the opposite no.2 and declared that the opposite party no.2 had actually sold out such property to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by such claim of the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 had lodged an FIR at Bolpur Police station and which was registered as FIR no. 141 of 2005 dated 19.09.2005 under Section 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and one Prafulla Vyas. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police (D.E.B), Bolpur, District- Birbhum submitted a report being final Report No.95 dated 31st May, 2007 stating inter-alia that in fact opposite party no.2 genuinely executed such deed in favour of the petitioner since the handwriting expert of the forensic laboratory has opined that the L.T.I appearing on the deed and the admitted L.T.I of opposite party no.2 are of self-same person.
(3.) Opposite party no.2 took out a protest petition challenging such report in final form and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, District - Birbhum after hearing opposite party no. 2 and considering such petition directed for re-investigation by circle inspector, Bolpur, District - Birbhum. On 29th February, 2008 the circle inspector, Bolpur, District- Birbhum again submitted a report in final form being no. 39 of 2008 whereby the circle inspector again submitted final report against the petitioner recommending discharge of the petitioner. Opposite party no.2 again being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such report submitted another application for re-investigation by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bolpur, District - Birbhum. The prayer of opposite party no.2 was accepted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bolpur, District - Birbhum and the matter was again sent for reinvestigation by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Bolpur, District - Birbhum. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Bolpur again submitted report in final form recommending discharge of the petitioner with a prayer for drawing up a proceeding under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code for filing false case against opposite party no.2. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the report of sub- Divisional Police Officer has accepted the said report. At that point of time opposite party no.2 filed a Naraji petition/protest petition in the form of complaint. Opposite party no.2 and his 2 witnesses were examined and thereafter learned Magistrate issued summons upon the petitioner holding inter- alia that opposite party no.2 has made out a prima facie case under Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code.;