R.K. Bag, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated June 30, 2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 5th Court, Howrah, in G.R. No. 1676 of 2011 by filing this revision under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(2.) It appears from the materials on record that, on April 7, 2011, the opposite party No. 2 filed a petition of complaint before the court of learned Magistrate which was forwarded to the Officer -in -Charge of Shibpur Police Station under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registration of FIR and causing investigation. Accordingly, Shibpur Police Station Case No. 247 of 2011 dated April 7, 2011 under Ss. 406/420/467/468/471/120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code came into existence. The police investigated the criminal case and submitted charge -sheet before the court of learned Magistrate on May 16, 2011. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the hearing of the case. The petitioner filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for discharge. On June 30, 2014, learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner for discharge from the said criminal case and proceeded with the hearing of the case. The said order dated June 30, 2014 passed by learned Magistrate is under challenge in this revision.
(3.) By referring to the averments made in the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2, Mr. Choudhuri, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by registered deed of settlement executed by the mother of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2, the petitioner acquired the property described in Scheduled 'C' of the said deed of settlement and the petitioner acquired the property described in Scheduled 'B' of the said deed of settlement. It is alleged in the petition of complaint that the petitioner not only sold out the property acquired by her by virtue of the said deed of settlement, but also sold out some portion of the property falling in the share of opposite party No. 2. Mr. Choudhury further submits that the opposite party No. 2 has already instituted the Title Suit No. 144 of 2011 against the petitioner and the transferee of the said property before the civil court praying for pre -emption of the property falling in the share of opposite party No. 2 as per terms of deed of settlement executed by the mother of the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in "Mohammed Ibrahim V. State of Bihar" reported in : (2009) 8 SCC 751, Mr. Choudhuri has urged this Court to consider that the averments made by the opposite party No. 2 in the petition of complaint do not disclose any offence of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust and as such continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will be an abuse of the process of the court.;