JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. This is an application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of a proceeding being TR no. 59 of 2016 arising out of CR No. 4 of 2016 u/s 447/323/506/34 of IPC presently pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Court Garbeta, Paschim Medinipur.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present opposite party lodged a written complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate contending inter-alia that the father and uncle of the present opposite party have an undivided landed property at the suit mouja. The uncle of the opposite party entered into an agreement with Bharati Airtel Limited for installation of a mobile tower without knowledge of the father of the petitioners the said undivided land. Dispute arose between the father and uncle of the opposite party and one complaint case was registered. On 24/11/2015 at about 2:30 p.m. the complainant came to know that his uncle along with some outsider entered into the above undivided land and caused measurement. At the time the OP reached the spot wherein the present petitioner and other accused abused the petitioner with filthy languages also physically assaulted and threatened him with dire consequences. By such the petitioner sustained injury and was treated at hospital. Consequently he filed the instant complaint case. After receiving the complaint, the court below has examined the complainant as well as the witnesses on S/A. Thereafter the Learned Magistrate has directed the O.C Garbeta P.S. to conduct an investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. The O.C. conducted investigation of the case and submitted a report before the Learned Magistrate on 24.05.2017. After receiving the report the Learned Magistrate has issued the process against the accused persons u/s 323 of IPC.

3. Hence this revision.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before this court that the instant criminal proceeding is palpably illegal in the eye of law. the Learned Magistrate had issued the process without applying his judicial mind. The issuance of process on the strength of the report of O.C. Garbeta, P.S. against the present petitioner is palpably illegal. He further argued that the dispute between the parties are completely civil in nature but the present petitioner was illegally introduced in the private dispute.

5. It is the positive case of the present petitioner that on the date of instant the present petitioner was not an employee of the Bharati Airtel Limited the petitioner left the Bharati Airtel Limited on 19.05.2014. After being released by Bharati Airtel Limited the petitioner joined Pidilite Industries Limited at Mumbai as Chief Sales Manager on 02/06/2014 till today he is working with Pidilite Industries Limited. It is the further case of the petitioner that he never involved in any of the work of installation of mobile tower of Bharati Airtel Limited and he never involved in such alleged offence.

6. At a later stage, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner annexing the orders passed by this court along with the document of Pidilite Industries Limited wherein the present petitioner is working. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that though, it is a very initial stage of a criminal case but at this stage the Learned Magistrate has power to postpone the process u/s 203 of Cr.P.C. In support of his contention he cited a decision reported in Nirmaljit Sing Hoon vs. State of West Bengal, (1973) 3 SCC 753:

22. Under section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a magistrate can take cognizance of an offence, either on receiving a complaint or on a police report or on information otherwise received. Where a complaint is presented before him he can under Section 200 take cognizance of the offence made out therein and has then to examine the complaint and his witnesses. The object of such examination is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the person accused of the offen