JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. The order dated 3.9.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 4th court at Barrackpore, North 24 Parganas, in Complaint Case No. 19 of 2007, is under challenge in this revision, filed by the petitioner, under section 482 of the CrPC. The present petitioner, that is, the accused person in the said complaint case, filed in the trial Court, his prayer for discharge, vide his application dated 22. 3. 2016. The same was disposed of by the trial Court vide the impugned order dated 3.9.2016 for the reason inter alia that the materials on evidence as well as that on record had disclosed sufficiently to proceed against the present petitioner/accused person. Thus the petitioner was aggrieved and has challenged the said impugned order in this revision.

2. In this case, while adjudicating to decide whether the petitioner would have been entitled under the law, for an order of discharge, this Court would delve upon the points, firstly, as to whether the previous order of the Coordinate Bench rejecting petitioner’s prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding against him, should act as a debarring factor to go into the prayer of the petitioner in this case, which is virtually the same as that in his previous case. Then, whether there has been so compelling change in circumstances, after the previous order of the Coordinate Bench rejecting petitioner’s prayer for quashing of the criminal proceeding, to be taken into consideration, to assess his prayer in this case, which is virtually similar to that in the previous case. The Court will see if the non-production of any vital document/information, said to have prompted the Coordinate Bench previously, to consider petitioner’s case, not in its proper perspective, and if the same should again be considered in this case, to weigh if the petitioner would have been eligible for an order of discharge as the evidence and materials would not have made out a case against him. The court shall consider, if petitioner’s case is comprised with the questions of facts only, legible to be decided in a trial.

3. Since this case is germane to an order of the trial Court under section 245 of the CrPC, at the threshold the said provision may be extracted:

“245.When accused shall be discharged.-

(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him.

(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless.”

4. Therefore, the law is that the Magistrate shall apply his mind and consider the evidence of the prosecution. The Magistrate shall also give the prosecution/complainant, an opportunity of being heard. He shall apply mind to all the materials as above and shall come to a finding that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrent his conviction. Law has further mandated that the reasons so formulated by him to support his decision should be recorded in writing. Only then an order of discharge passed by him can be stated to be in terms of and compliance with the statutory provision and not otherwise.

5. At this stage let the chronology of facts be stated in a nutshell. The petitioners owned and possessed the property, some portion of which, measuring 3 Cottahas 13 Chittaks 38 sqft, in MoujaMulajore, R.S Dag No.790, Khatian No.1607, J.L.No. 18, Touji No.655, was purchased by the complainant/opposite party. Date of execution of the sale deed is 26.12.2005. Classification of the said land is at the core of the dispute between the parties. The complainant has alleged that he has been deceived by the petitioners, who misrepresented intentionally and induced him about the classification of the