MD SIRAJ Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is at the instance of the accused person and is directed against the Amherst Street P. S. FIR No.251 10.11.2005 under Section 420/120B of the I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. Case No.1379 of 2005 arising out of a petition of complaint bearing no.C 949 of 2005 sent to the P.S. under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The fact leading to the fling of this application is that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was the owner in respect of some plots of lands and by demise of the predecessor-ininterest, the petitioner became the owner in respect of some portion of the land. The petitioner decided to sell his land and Maniruddin Munshi and Lutfonnahar expressed their willingness to purchase the aforesaid land of the petitioner. The price was settled at the rate of Rs.3,50,000/- per cottah. The intending purchasers paid a sum of Rs.5,00,001/- as advance money and the petitioner made a written declaration on 02.04.2005 to that effect. The said bayananama does not bear the signature of Maniruddin Munshi and Lutfonnahar. It was settled that the intending purchasers would pay the balance amount within six months from the date of execution of the bayananama and then the petitioner would register a deed of sale in favour of the intending purchasers. Ultimately, no registration took place; correspondences were made between the parties through their respective advocates. Thereafter one Mashiruddin Munshi, father of Maniruddin Munshi, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta bearing no.C-949 of 2005. That application was then sent to Amherst Street P.S. The Amherst Street P.S. started p.s. case accordingly against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred this application for quashing the proceedings.

(3.) Mr. Milon Mukerherjee, learned Advocate submits that the Amherst Street P.S. Case No.251 dated 10.11.2005 under Section 420/120B of the I.P.C. against the petitioner cannot proceed because the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 does not disclose any ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420/120B of the I.P.c. or any other provisions and so the police authority has no power to investigate the same. He also contends that no agreement was held between him and the opposite party no.2 at all for the bynanama for sale of a piece of land. In spite of that, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta sent the petition of complaint to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. So the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind in passing the order for investigation. He also contended that the dispute is of civil nature and so the FIR has been filed with mala fide intention and to harass the petitioner. So the Amherst Street P.S. Case No.251 dated 10.11.2005 should be quashed.