The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for the Magistrate to carefully scrutinize the complaint, examine the complainant and his witnesses, and conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing process, especially if the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - This revisional application has been preferred for quashing of proceedings in Case No. 986C of 2018 now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court Bankura under section 406/420/423/506/120B of the Indian Penal code. Opposite party is not represented. It is submitted in the complain that opposite party is the co-sharer of the undivided ancestral property being khatian No. 601, Dag No. 1212 and 1213 under Mouza Ramchandrapur, Bankura. Co-accused persons are the other co-sharers of said property. In the month of June, 2007, accused No. 5 had given proposal to the opposite party to set up a mobile tower at the said property at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/- and sum will be divided among four co-sharers. In the month of January, 2008 when opposite party visited the said property, he found that adjacent vacant land was being used for construction of telecom tower. On enquiry opposite party came to know that an agreement was signed between Adal Rajak, Sukhamoy Rajak and other with M/S Bharti Infratel Limited by which licence was granted at a monthly license fee of Rs. 7,500/- per month of which each co-sharer will get Rs.3,500/- per month except opposite party. Opposite party raised vehement protest against said agreement but he was abused and threatened by co-accused persons. In April, 2008, opposite party went to the office of M/S Bharti Infratel Limited and they agreed to pay monthly licence fee as agreed upon and he received the agreed amount per month till 11.07.2012 but suddenly said payment was stopped. After repeated letters, payment was again made till 09.04.2014. Opposite Party again went to the office of petitioner/company, wherein opposite party was given a copy of a leave and license agreement stating that opposite party was not entitled to receive any rent and the opposite party was driven out by force when he demanded to see the original of the said leave and license agreement which have been allegedly forged by accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 4 and thereby cheated the opposite party.

2. The opposite party herein filed an application under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying before the learned Court to direct the local police authorities to register a First Information Report treating the petition of complaint as First Information Report but learned Magistrate recorded that the case would be inquired. Immediately thereafter took cognizance and without citing any prudent reason transferred the file of the said case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Bankura for inquiry, trial and disposal.

3. The main allegation is that learned Magistrate did not find it expedient to comply with the mandatory statutory provision under Section 200 or Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which establishes an obligation upon the learned Magistrate for issuing process to decide whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons, i.e. the petitioner company in the instant case. In fact record does not reflect any judicial order passed by the learned Magistrate recording his satisfaction of a prima facie case against the petitioner directing issuance of process against the petitioner.

Thus, the petitioner's contention is that the purported allegation made by the opposite party in the petition of complaint is absurd and it does not make out any case under any of the Sections 406/420/423/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, submits that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate have taken cognizance mechanically and without applying his mind. Moreover, it is not clear whether the opposite party and his witness were examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or not which give rise to possibility of severe procedural latches contrary to the provision of the Code. Moreover, the accused persons are residing at a place beyond the area in which the le