KALPANA BHOWMICK Vs. MANASHI ROY BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is at the instance of the de-facto complainant of the G. R. Case No. 879 of 2007 and is directed against the order dated 19-12-2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah in the said G. R. Case No. 879 of 2007 thereby accepting the Final Report submitted by the I. O. in Manicktala P. S. Case No. 101 dated 1-6-2007.

(2.) The short fact is that the opposite party No. 1 is the owner of a plot of land at 46/C/ 45, Biplabi Barin Chosh Sarani under the P. S. Maniktala. She engaged the opposite party No. 2 to construct a building on the said plot measuring about 2 cottah, 14 chitak and 13 square feet. The Petitioner booked the flat No. 1A on the first floor of the said premises, and as a part of the consideration money, she paid Rs. 3,20,000/- by cheques, out of the total consideration money of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Possession was handed over to the Petitioner but the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 were making delay in execution of the deed of sale in favour of the Petitioner. Later, it revealed that the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 had sold the said flat to the opposite party No. 3 by a registered deed of sale. It also revealed that opposite party No. 4 obtained a loan in respect of the said flat from the ICICI Bank. Thus, the Petitioner had been cheated by the opposite parties. So, she filed an ejahar under Sections 420/406/120B/34 of the I. P. C. with the Manicktala P. S. Police investigated the case as usual and submitted the Final Report. Before accepting the Final Report, a notice was issued upon the Petitioner, and then the Petitioner filed one Naraji petition. Upon hearing both the sides, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah accepted the Final Report thereby discharging the accused persons from the said case by the impugned order dated 19-12-2007. Being aggrieved, the de-facto complainant has preferred this revisional application.

(3.) Having considered the submission of the learned Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the Petitioner booked the flat No. 1A on the first floor of the premises No. 46/C/45, Biplabi Ghosh Sarani under the P. S. Manicktala and she paid Rs. 3,20,000/- by cheques, out of the total consideration money of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the said flat. Thus, she paid 80% of the full consideration money but the execution of the sale deed had not been done by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. So execution of the deed of sale is to be made in favour of the applicant by the opposite party Nos. 1 & 2. This is a pure civil dispute.