SANKAR ACHARYYA, J. - (1.) This revisional application has been filed by six accused petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 18th December, 2008 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in case no. C-1545/2008 on an application filed by the opposite party no. 2 as complainant under Section 156 (3), Cr.P.C. In the impugned order direction was given to O.C. Burrabazar P.S. for investigation treating the complaint as F.I.R. At the very outset, it is pointed out that the impugned order has been passed filling up the blanks in a printed form.
(2.) In the revisional application, inter alia, petitioners have contended that the opposite party no. 2 lodged the complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta on 18th December, 2008 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. and said complaint was forwarded by learned Metropolitan Magistrate to the O.C., Burrabazar P.S. for investigation treating the complaint as F.I.R. Petitioners have claimed that the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute any cognisable offence. Said allegations relate to civil dispute between the opposite party no. 2 and the petitioners. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. No document was produced along with the complaint. There is no element of cheating or criminal breach of trust or criminal conspiracy against the accused petitioners in the complaint but First Information Report has been registered against them for the offences punishable under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code (in short I.P.C). The petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned order and the proceeding initiated on the complaint of the opposite party no. 2.
(3.) At the time of hearing the opposite party no. 1 the State of West Bengal did not participate but the opposite party no. 2 who is defacto complainant in the Court below contested the revisional application. The opposite party no. 2 filed affidavit-in-opposition challenging the contention of the revisional application. Then petitioners have filed one affidavit-in-reply.;