The investigation carried out by the investigating officer was tainted and biased, and the trial court's order accepting the final report was perverse and not justified under the law.

R. K. Bag, J.

The petitioner Bani Saha has preferred revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated December 29, 2012 passed by Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in C.G.R. Case No.1085 of 2010 arising out of Alipore Police Station Case No.73 dated March 30, 2010 under Sections 406, 409, 418, 384, 420, 109, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by which Learned Magistrate accepted the final report submitted by the Investigating Officer and rejected the prayer of the petitioner for further investigation. This revision is registered as C.R.R. 218 of 2012. The petitioner Kalpana Majumder has preferred revision under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated June 11, 2013 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Siliguri in G.R. Case No.1086 of 2011 under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, by which Learned Magistrate discharged the accused persons. This revision is registered as C.R.R. 2378 of 2013. Both the revisions arise out of the criminal cases which relate to the same offence or offences arising out of the same transaction and as such I am inclined to dispose of both the revisions by this common judgement with consent of learned counsel representing the parties.

2. The backdrop of the criminal case filed by the petitioner Bani Saha is as follows: The petitioner Bani Saha along with her husband Uttam Kumar Saha, and one Kalpana Majumder and her husband Mrinal Kanti Majumder approached the opposite party No.2 Arun Kumar Sarkar for carrying out legal formalities for purchase of land measuring about 15 cottahs 8 chatak at premises no.104, Dr. Meghnath Saha Sarani, Ward No.90 of Kolkata Municipal Corporation in the year 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the said disputed property”). The opposite party Arun Kumar Sarkar assured the petitioner and her associates that “the said disputed property” is free from all encumbrances and suggested for entering into a contract for purchase of “the said disputed property” at a total consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. The opposite party no.2 also suggested to the petitioner and his associates that the name of his wife Ranju Sarkar may be incorporated in the said contract as intending purchaser and that he would make payment of 1/5th share of advance consideration money at the time of registration of the agreement, in default Ranju Sarkar would assign her interest in the contract in favour of the petitioner and her associates. The amount of advance consideration money was fixed at Rs.20,00,000/-. Thus, the petitioner and four others including Ranju Sarkar entered into an agreement for sale with one Mangobinda Shaw and seven others for purchase of “the said disputed property” and the said deed was registered in the office of the District Sub-Registrar at Alipore on November 15, 2002. The petitioner and his three associates paid the advance consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- in favour of the intending vendors. The opposite party Ranju Sarkar or her husband Arun Kumar Sarkar did not make payment of any advance consideration money at the time of execution or registration of the said deed of agreement for sale. The details of payment made by cheques to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- and by cash to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- are described under memo of consideration annexed to the said deed of agreement for sale.

3. In the year 2005, the opposite party Ranju Sarkar and her husband approached the petitioner and her husband and expressed their inability to proceed with the purchase of “the said disputed property” and wanted to opt out of the agreement for sale. Accordingly, the opposite party Arun Kumar Sarkar prepared one deed of assignment of 1/5th share of Ranju Sarkar in the agreement for sale and the same was executed by the opposite party Ranju Sarkar in favour of the petitioner and her husband on July 28, 2005.