IMPORTANT POINT
It is trite law that inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC can be exercised by High Court when the uncontroverted allegations and aspersions made in the petitioners complaint do not disclose a prima facie cognizable offence against accused.

Kanchan Chakraborty, J.—This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Krishnapada Mondal and Smt. Mamata Mondal praying for quashing of the proceedings in case no.C-403 of 2007 under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah, on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out in the uncontroverted allegations and aspersions put forth by the opposite party in the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate, who, in turn, had taken cognizance of the same.

2. The petitioners, Kalipada Mondal and Smt. Mamata Mondal, approached Arup Kumar Sinha, opposite party no.1, to purchase the landed property which he wanted to sell. It was decided that the property would be sold to the petitioners by the opposite party at a sum of Rs. 83,000/-. On 10.10.2006, the petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 48,000/- in cash towards consideration money. On 16.10.2006 they handed over a cheque of Rs. 35,000/- i.e. a balance consideration sum to the opposite party no.1 as full and final settlement. On the next day, i.e. on 17.10.2006, the title deed was registered in the name of the petitioners and they took over the possession of the property. On 23.10.2006 the cheque was placed before the bank for encashment but was dishonoured. The opposite party no.1 informed the petitioners that the cheque they issued was dishonoured and the petitioners assured them that they would arrange money so that on a subsequent presentation of the cheque, it would not be dishonoured. But on 16.4.2007 when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured.

3. According to the opposite party, everything was done with mala fide intention in order to cheat the opposite party no.1. So, he initiated the criminal case against the petitioner under Sections 420/120B of Indian Penal Code.

4. The petitioners have come with this application praying for quashing of the proceeding on the ground that no case of cheating has been made out against them in the complaint petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the opposite party and perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of the petition of complaint and after perusal of the deposition.

5. A careful perusal of the petition of complaint makes it clear that the opposite party herein wanted to sell the property and it was not the present petitioners who created pressure of any kind to dispose of the property in their favour. On other words, they did not deceive or induce the opposite party to sell the property in their favour. Again, it appears that a consideration money of Rs. 83,000/- was fixed and out of which a sum of Rs. 48,000/- was paid in cash. That money was received by the opposite party. This fact shows that the petitioners paid major portion of the consideration money. They, however, did not get the title deed of landed property executed in their names even after the payment of major portion of the consideration money. They issued a cheque on 16.10.2006 whereby balance consideration money of Rs. 35,000/- was paid and on the next date, the title deed was executed in their favour and possession was handed over in their favour. That cheque was dishonoured twice. The opposite party has neither initiated any criminal action under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act nor taken any recourse of any money suit for recovery of balance consideration of Rs. 35,000/-. It is redundant to mention here that in a case of cheating, there should be mala fide intention on the part of the accused from the very inception which is conspicuously absent in this case. In a case of cheating, besides mal-intention, there should be undue inducement or deceive on the part of the accused. That important ingredient of the offence of cheating is also absent in this case. At best, a cause of action could have been raised under Secti