JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. These criminal revisions were preferred for quashing of a criminal proceedings being no C.S 21336/17, C.S. 34652/17, C.S. 34649/17 pending before the Learned jurisdictional Magistrate u/s 406/409/420/465/467/468/506 read with 120B/34 IPC.

2. The brief fact of the petition is that the petitioner no. 1 is the Limited Liability Partnership Farm and other petitioners are the office bearer/designated partner of said Farm. The opposite party and his brother are the real estate investor who had on earlier occasion invested and purchased office premises in other projects developed by the petitioners. Thereafter some times in 2014-2015 the opposite party came to know that the petitioner is coming with a new project and as such the opposite party and his brothers approached the petitioner for purchase few office space on the said new up-coming project. As there were previous acquaintance and transactions between them, the OP and his brother entered into an agreement to purchase some office space. The applications were signed between them and according to agreement and usual practice OP and his brother handed over requisite post dated cheques for the full basic price. The post dated cheques were to be dropped for encashment on the date mentioned of the cheque. Initially after that the petitioner started depositing the said post dated cheque one after another for encashment but it appears that several post dated cheques were dishonoured with a memo from the banker of the opposite party with an intimation that “account closed” has been closed and some were mentioned “insufficient funds”. Thereafter the present petitioner serves several demand notice upon the opposite parties but the demand notices were returned un-served. Thereafter the petitioner somehow received the e-mail address of the opposite party and sent a notice through e-mail to opposite party inter alia demanding the outstanding payments for the office space. In reply to the said e-mail the opposite party has made a false story regarding cash payment of huge money and demand of original money receipt and so called diary. Petitioners denied the claim, suddenly, the petitioner has received the summons of the Learned Magistrate concerned.

3. It is the submission of the Learned Advocate for the petitioner that the opposite party has initiated the criminal proceeding with some false and concocted story. The petitioner is living outside the jurisdiction of the Learned Magistrate and the Learned Magistrate without conducting the proper inquiry u/s 202 (1) Cr.P.C. issued the process illegally. He further pointed out that the present opposite party deliberately closed his bank account instead of payments of post dated cheques to the petitioner. He again argued that if the instant criminal proceeding is allowed to be continued the petitioner shall suffer irreparable lost and injury and it would be abuse of process of court.

4. The case of the opposite party/complainant is that, the opposite party and his brother was previously acquainted with the petitioner firm. The agents of the petitioner firm i.e. accused/petitioner no. 4, 5 and 6 and 7 made contact with the representatives of the complainant and impressed them in a meeting that they shall construct a new tower around the city of Ahmedabad. On their assurances the opposite party and his brother were satisfied to book some office spaces at the said upcoming projects. The accused/petitioners also informed about the base booking price and the mode of payment of such booking. It is the further case of the complainant that the opposite party and his brother booked some office space believing on the representations of the accused persons and at the time of booking they paid some amount in cash as well as some posted cheques were also handed over. On demand of the proper money receipt the accused persons handed over a diary wherein the cash payment was mentioned including the booked office space number, r