The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a criminal prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court, especially in the presence of pending civil suits and lack of evidence, it may be quashed.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - Present revisional application has been directed for quashing of the proceeding being Maheshtala Police Station Case No. 211 of 2019 dated 13.04.2019 under Sections 420/465/467/468/120B of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to BGR No. 2215 of 2019 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.

2. Opposite party no. 2, being Managing Director of Metropolitan Real Estate Private Limited, and as constituted attorney holder of Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, lodged an First Information Report (FIR) with Maheshtala Police Station alleging that Sri Manik Lal Santra, Smt. Geeta Santra and Smt. Nirmala Paramanick alias Mangla Paramanick executed an agreement for sale with regard to land measuring 3 Acre 48.75 decimals at Mouza - Roypur, being R. S. No. 73 under Khatian No. 389 and possession of the said land was handed over to said Mr. Ashok Chakraborty. Further allegation is that though said agreement for sale was executed in the year 1997, after several requests, deed of conveyance was not executed by the aforesaid owners and for which a civil suit for specific performance was filed in the court of 7th Assistant District Judge, at Alipore, being Title Suit No. 14 of 1995 and thereafter a deed of conveyance was executed through court in favour of said Mr. Ashok Chakraborty. It was further alleged that de facto complainant and said Mr. Ashok Chakraborty got information that the petitioner nos. 1 to 6 herein, along with other FIR-named accused persons, sold the said land on 23.11.2010 measuring 8 Cottahs 13 Chittack 25 Sq. ft and land measuring 5 Cottahs 7 Chittack 9 sq. ft. and also land measuring 3 cotttahs 6 chittack 16 sq. ft. and Mr. Palan Mondal, one of the FIR-named accused persons, signed in the said deed of conveyance as confirming party knowing well about the previous execution of the said sale deed thorough court, in favour of Mr. Ashok Chakraborty.

3. Mr. Maitra, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners, submits that said Sri Manik Lal Santra and Smt. Geeta Santra after being apprised of the said conveyance of the deed of sale through court filed suit in the court of learned 7th Civil Judge (Sr. Division) at Alipore with a prayer for setting aside the decree passed in the said suit for specific performance in the year 2011. The petitioners with utter surprise found aforesaid criminal case with the allegation that petitioner/accused persons by way of preparing alleged forged documents sold portion of the land in respect of which there is deed of conveyance executed by the court. Mr. Maitra submits that neither Sri Manik Lal Santra, nor Smt. Geeta Santra or anybody on their behalf were served with the summons of the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract at any point of time and even they could not trace out the record of the said suit in the concerned court.

4. Opposite party no. 2 as constituted attorney subsequently filed two suits, being Title Suit No. 3482 of 2010 and 3481 of 2010 in the year 2010 with a prayer for declaration of the deed of conveyance executed in favour of some of the accused persons, is void and did not confer any right titile interest upon the purchasers.

5. The present petitioners submit that they are bona fide purchasers of the land on valuable consideration and before deed of conveyance was executed, the petitioners caused inspection in the office of the District Registrar and the Settlement Office and nothing transpired that any deed of conveyance was executed earlier and further record of rights transpires the name of vendors of the petitioners and after being satisfied with the marketable title of the vendors in respect of the land in question, they purchased the property on valuable consideration.

6. Mr. Maitra on behalf of the petitioners further submits that no specific role has been attributed to any of the petitioners in respect of commission of the alleged offence and even though property was purchased