IMPORTANT POINT
A magistrate must apply mind and provide reasoning when taking cognizance of complaints; failure to do so allows for quashing of proceedings to prevent abuse of process.

ORDER :

V. Sujatha, J.

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”) to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.09 of 2017 on the file of learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvidand the order dated 14.10.2016 in C.F.No.3538 of 2016 passed by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nuzvid.

2. The petitioner herein is the sole accused and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the complainants. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein have submitted a private complaint on the file of the II Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate, Nuzivid stating that the petitioner herein has informed them that she is the sole and exclusive owner of the property in the agreement of sale of schedule property to an extent of Acs.3.75 cents in R.S.No.8-3; that she got the said property from different vendors i.e. Acs.1.34 cents vide document No.1077/2003, Acs.0.54 cents vide document no.1322/2003,Acs.1.03 cents from Seelam Seethavaram and Acs.0.84 cents from Peduri Savithri. Believing the said information, the complainants have executed an agreement of sale on 16.06.2014 while paying an advance sale consideration of Rs.20,20,000/-. The agreement contains specific conditions and the major condition is that the aforesaid sale advance amount would be forfeited if the complainants fail to register the schedule property within the stipulated period of 45 days from the date of agreement. Though the complainants were ready for registration of the schedule property in their favour, the petitioner herein has intentionally postponed the registration in order to gain in view of the forfeiture clause in agreement. On 27.08.2014, the petitioner herein has published a paper publication stating that she was discharged from the agreement dated 16.06.2014 as the complainants failed to fulfill their part. As such, the complainants issued a legal notice to the petitioner and have also filed a suit in O.S.No.97 of 2014 on the file of IX Additional District Judge at Nuzvid, for specific performance. Pending the said suit, the complainants got to know that the petitioner is the rightful owner of land to an extent of 1.34 cents but not the remaining extent of land as stated in the agreement, which actually belong to the State Government. Immediately, on 22.06.2016, the complainants rushed to Agiripalli Police Station for filing complaint with the Station House Officer, but the Station House Officer failed to register an FIR against the petitioner. Having considered the private complaint, the Court below in C.F.No.3538 of 2016 passed an order on 14.10.2016 directing the S.H.O of Agiripalli Police Station to investigate the matter further and to file report.

3. In pursuance of the said order dated 14.10.2016, the police have registered the case in Crime No.206 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 418 of IPC read with 156(3) Cr.P.C. After due investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nuzvid in C.C.No.09 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 418 of IPC read with 156(3) Cr.P.C. The present criminal petition has been filed to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.09 of 2017 and the order dated 14.10.2016 in C.F.No.3538 of 2016.

4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating contentions raised in the petition has further contended that the learned Judge, without applying his mind whether there are prima facie allegations that are material for the alleged offence warranting any investigation by the Police under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., has taken cognizance on the private complaint filed by the complainants, without assigning any reasons whatsoever for taking cognizance. He further contended that the Station House Officer, Agiripalli Police Station has failed to apply his mind in registering the FIR treating the direction of the Court below as the one under Section 156(3) of Cr