Subrata Talukdar, J.

In this application Under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) the petitioners challenge the proceeding being Case no. C/105 of 2010 arising out of MP Case no.219 of 2009 under Sections 341/386/406/420/447/448/453 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) presently pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Bidhan Nagar, District 24-Parganas North.

The petitioners, inter alia, on the platform of the several grounds made out in the present application pray for quashing of the said impugned proceeding.

The short facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are as follows:-

a) That the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Mahakal Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (herein after referred to for short as the said Society or only the Society). The petitioner nos. 3 and 4 are members of the said society.

b) The Opposite Party no.2 (for short OP2) and her husband, one Shri Rana Roy were admitted as the members of the said Society. At the time of their admission the OP2 and her husband were also members of one Jaiyta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. In view of the dual membership of the OP2 and her husband in both the cooperative societies, the said Society adopted a resolution at its Board meeting dated 17th October, 2007 thereby disqualifying the membership of the OP2 and her husband from the roll of its members in terms of Rule 136 R of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 1987 (for short the 1987 Rules). The OP2 and her husband were, thereafter, requested to resign their membership from the said Society.

c) In view of the above noted developments, the OP2 and her husband made an attempt to transfer their membership in the Jaiyta Co-operative in favour of their son, Rishi Roy, who is the OP3 in this application. Furthermore, in view of the failure on the part of both the OP2 and her husband to act in terms of the request to resign their membership, the said Society adopted a resolution at its meeting of the Board of Directors (for short BOD) on 27th June 2008 thereby terminating the membership of the OP no.2 and her husband.

d) Upon termination of their membership the OP2 and her husband caused to be issued a legal notice to the said Society dated 31st July, 2008 therein claiming recall of the resolution terminating their membership. The said notice dated 31st July, 2008 was replied to by the said Society on 14th August, 2008 and the OP2 and her husband accepted an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs, from the said Society by account payee cheques being part of the full and final settlement of Rs.12,09,750.

e) Thereafter, the OP2 and her husband called upon the said Society through the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to pay the balance amount in favour of OP3. However, neither the OP2 nor her husband tendered their resignation from the roll of members of the said Society for which on the 25th of March, 2009 the Society had to remind the OP2 and her husband to receive the balance amount after tendering their resignation.

f) Subsequently OP3, acting as the Constituted Attorney of the OP2 filed a complaint under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Ld. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bidhan Nagar (for short ACJM) dated 9th September. 2009. Admitting the said complaint the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to direct the Inspector-in-charge, South Bidhan Nagar Police Station to investigate the complaint and file a report. It is relevant to note that the complaint was treated as a FIR under Sections 447/448/453/341/386/406/420 read with Section 120 (B) IPC.

g) Following the direction of the Ld. ACJM the police submitted a Final Report no. 87/2010 dated 22nd July, 2010 stating, inter alia, that the dispute between the parties is civil nature and, on the basis of the final report citing mistake of fact (for short FRMF), prayed for discharge of the petitioners/accused citing lack of evidence.

h) Aggrieved by the filing o