JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. This is an application u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of a proceeding in connection with GR Case No. 6600 of 2014 arising out of Khardah Police Station Case No. 1110 of 2014 dated 1st December 2014 under sections 323/373/420/406/448/427/506/120B and 34 of IPC pending before the Learned Court of 1st Judicial Magistrate at Barrackpore.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioners are the owners in respect of land and opposite party no. 2 is the developer. One development agreement was executed and signed between the parties for the purpose of construction of multi-storied-building over the portion of land. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the present opposite party no. 2 has flouted the terms of the agreement and as he was directed by the present petitioners for the performance of the development agreements. The instant false criminal proceeding was filed.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the contents of the application u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. does not disclose the ingredients of the offence as complaint. He further pointed out that the police has conducted the investigation of this case in a perfunctory manner and submitted a charge sheet without basis of any documents and ingredients which can substantiate commission of alleged offence. He again pointed out that the dispute between the parties are civil in nature. The petitioners got a favourable order of bail from the competent court wherein it was observed that the matter of dispute between the parties is civil in nature.

4. He further pointed out that in compliance of the terms of the development agreement the petitioners had deposited a huge sum of money with the private opposite party but he did not hand over the possession of the owner’s portion of the flat. The dispute between the parties is now pending before the Learned Consumer Court.

5. He further submitted that the statement of available witnesses recorded by the I.O. are of mala-fide, of the witnesses are interested witnesses who were working under the control of the present opposite party no. 2. The statement of no independent witness was recorded by the I.O. the investigation of the police was concluded in a perfunctory manner. He again pointed out that there are no ingredients for the commission of offence u/s 420 or 406 of IPC. There are no evidence of criminal trespassed. In the course of investigation police could not recovered any article which was alleged to be stolen by the present petitioner. Thus offence punishable u/s 379 IPC is not substantiated. He prayed for quashing.

6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the private opposite party no. 2 submitted that the petitioners along with some anti social elements entered into the business premises of the OP no 2. He had been assaulted mercilessly. The petitioner also stoled some articles and money destroyed several documents relating to the business. On the basis of the complaint police investigated the case and after satisfying about the prima facie commission of the offence has made out, submitted charge sheet against all the petitioners. He further argued that the opposite party no. 2 was treated at the hospital for such assault. The injury report is not the sine qua non for the commission of the offence u/s 323 IPC. He further pointed out the order of the Learned Consumer Forum would reflect that the present petitioners had forcefully obtained the possession. Thus there are ingredients of offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. He further argued that the instant case is pending before the Learned Magistrate which is at the stage of evidence. Thus the instant case cannot be quashed.

7. In support of his contention he cited a decision reported in (2019) 6 SCC 107 and argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has held that appreciation of evidence at the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is impermissible. Para 14 of the above citation is set out as f