Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) By virtue of the order dated 13.06.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi, the C.R.R. No. 1868 of 2017, C.R.R. No. 1870 of 2017, C.R.R. No. 1871 of 2017, C.R.R. No. 1873 of 2017 and C.R.R. No. 1874 of 2017 are taken up along with the revisional application bearing C.R.R. No. 1870 of 2017. On consent of the parties all these revisional applications are taken up for hearing analogously and are to be disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) Challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings of a complaint case bearing C.R. Case No. 438 of 2017 under Section 406/420/120B of I.P.C. pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Siliguri, the petitioners/accused of that case filed this revisional application contending inter alia that the impugned order passed by the Magistrate is without any application of mind and that there is no ingredient of cheating, criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation of property etc.
(3.) According to the petitioner an agreement was entered into by and between the present petitioner no. 2 and the private respondent for promoting a piece of land and to construct the ancestral property and for which the power of attorney was executed on 9.12.2002 to do the same and consequent works related thereto. Due to certain disputes and difference, the complaint respondent no. 2 had revoked the said power of attorney. However, the matter went up to arbitration. Learned District Judge had passed an order, as alleged by the present petitioner, in their favour which was challenged before this Hon'ble Court and that F.M.A. No. 1171 of 2007 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. According to the petitioner, vide Para 8 of their revisional application, the petitioner No. 2 was permitted to sell out her share of the allotted flats. Since the impugned order of the learned District Judge was decided in their favour by this Hon'ble Court, the complaint case does not lie and it ought to be quashed. In Para 8 of the revisional application the petitioner No. 2 contended that she was permitted to sell out her share by the learned District Judge but curiously enough the order of the learned District Judge was not enclosed with the revisional application and only the order of the Division Bench was furnished. The Division Bench upheld the order of the learned District Judge.;