IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that inadequate notice to a complainant in criminal proceedings constitutes an abuse of process, and emphasized the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. This revision has been preferred against an order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah General Registrar Case No. 3993 of 2015 Manicktala Police Station Case No. 278 of 2015 dated 07.12.2015 under Sections 341/323/504/506/363/511/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25(1B)(a)/27 of The Arms Act, 1959 whereby the Learned Magistrate was pleased to receive final report in form of Mistake of Fact vide no. 52 of 2016 dated 03.08.2016 submitted on 14.09.2016 and thereupon was further been pleased to accept the same by dropping the entire proceeding upon issuance of notice upon the de-facto complainant/petitioner.

2. The proceedings in this case against the private opposite parties was initiated on the basis of a written complaint dated 19.11.2015, wherein it appears that there was an execution of a sale agreement between the parties for sale of a flat to the opposite parties/accuseds. There is a dispute relating to payment of Rs. 8,40,000/- made by the accuseds/opposite parties to the petitioner, which is denied by the petitioner.

3. The accuseds/opposite parties insist that they have paid but have lost the receipt. The petitioner herein has also alleged extortion by local leaders, who are assisting the accuseds.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner/complainant that no notice was served upon him, to enable him to file a ‘Naraji’ petition and that it is evident from the order under revision.

5. The order under revision is as follows:-

6. By way of a supplementary affidavit the petitioner has filed copies of the order and the Final Report.

7. The State has placed the case diary.

8. Written notes of Argument has been filed by the parties herein.

9. The petitioner has relied upon the following Judgments:-

i. Chittaranjan Jana Vs. State Of West Bengal & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 133, decided on 19th January, 2023.

ii. State through CBI Vs. Hemendhra Reddy & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515, decided on 28th April, 2023.

iii. Anant Thanur Karmuse Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2023) 5 SCC 802, decided on 24th February, 2023.

iv. Jakia Nasim Ahesan and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 302, decided on 12th September, 2011.

10. The opposite parties/accuseds have stated as follows:-

a. On 03.12.2014 a Sale Agreement was executed between the De-facto Complainant/Petitioner and others and the Opposite Party No.2 herein in respect of the peace of a self-contained residential flat consisting of three rooms, one hall room, one kitchen and one bath cum privy measuring about 500 Sq. Ft more or less including 20% super built up area lying and situated on the 3rd Floor, back position (Western Side) being premises No. 34/1/1, Biplab Barin Ghosh Sarani (Formarly 34 & 34/1, Murari Pukur Road), Police Station – Maniktala, Kolkata – 700 067 for a total amount of consideration to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-. As per the said Agreement for Sale the Petitioner/Complainant was under the obligation to deliver the possession of the Apartment for