(1) The revisional application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed to quash proceeding against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. C-3042 of 2008 under Section 406/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13B of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transfer by Promoters) Act, 1993.

(2) Petitioners herein are impleaded as accused along with others, in connection with the above noted case and the learned Court below by his order dated 8.2.2008 directed issuance of process against all the accused persons calling upon them to face trial for commission of offence as mentioned above. ,

(3) The case of the petitioners in short is that petitioners herein are office bearers of Martin Burn Ltd. (listed as accused No. 12 in the petition of complaint) Opposite Party booked a flat with 2 open car parking space at the housing complex constructed by the company of the petitioners at Rajarhat under Rajarhat, Gopalpur Municipality within the district of North 24 Parganas. The registered agreement between the parties was entered on 4.10.2001. The opposite party paid the entire amount, of Rs. 23,73,388/-on various dates between 7.2.2001 and 29.5,2001. However, on completion of the construction and after measurement, it could be ascertained that the actual area of the flat is more than what is stated in the agreement between the parties. In terms of the agreement the construction should have been completed by June, 2003 but due to intervening circumstances as housing infrastructure development corporation did not complete the drainage connection and facilities, the completion was delayed and the outside of the drainage facilities was completed in April, 2004. The opposite party suggested various modifications in the flat proposed to be purchased by him. The opposite party even after completion of flat raised numerous allegations. Ultimately on 12.4.2004 the Opposite Party repudiated the agreement and demanded refund of the entire consideration amount paid by him along with 15% interest. The Opposite Party failed to fulfil his commitment as per agreement. Ultimately, the petitioners has no option but to terminate the contract and forfeit the amount paid by the Opposite Party because of breach of agreement. Even after such termination the Opposite Party sent a post dated cheque of Rs. 2,40,869/-dated 1.10.2006 but the cheque was returned by the petitioners ultimately the Opposite Party lodged a false complaint against the petitioners.

(4) It is the contention of the petitioners that there is no basis in connection with the criminal offence for which the petition of complaint was instituted by the Opposite Party before the learned Magistrate. There is no ingredient to constitute the offence either under Section 406 or under Section 420 or under Section 120B of the I.P.C.

(5) The Opposite Party herein after entering appearance filed affidavit and produced documents which were annexed along with the petition of complaint before the learned Court below.

(6) The main contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner appears to be that on perusal of the recital in the petition of complaint there is nothing to show that the Opposite Party herein was induced or deceived and as a consequence of such inducement he parted with the property. It is also submitted that in this ease the Opposite Party has instituted the criminal case only to harass the petitioners. The entire fact as disclosed in the petition of complaint would show that a regular commercial transaction was entered between the parties. The Opposite Party approached the petitioners to purchase the flat constructed by the Company of the petitioners and consequent to the agreement paid the amount of money as price to purchase the flat. Thereafter, dispute cropped up between the parties mainly on the ground that the constructed area was more than the area shown in the agr