IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are to prevent abuse of process and ensure justice, requiring substantial grounds for quashing proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

1. The instant Criminal Revision is filed under Section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.) for quashing of the charge-sheet being No.349 of 2019 filed on 28.07.2019 under Sections 447/448/323/354/506/ 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’), to the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur at Tamluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.J.M’), in connection with Tamluk Police Case number 224 of 2019 dated 18.04.2019, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 806 of 2019, and quashing of the order of cognizance of the offences taken by Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur on 26.11.2019, on the ground that they have been falsely implicated in this case out of personal vengeance and the charge-sheet has been filed after perfunctory investigation.

2. Brief facts necessary for deciding this criminal revision are that both parties are neighbours and they were at loggerheads on the issue of title and possession over “Ka/1” scheduled property, which augmented an acrimonious relationship between them. As they were antagonistic to each other, the surroundings became charged.

3. Anticipating serious threat to the peace and tranquility in the locality, the petitioners Sukumar Ray Rana and others filed a petition under Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C to the Court of Ld. Sub-divisional Magistrate 1st Court, Tamluk, praying for an order to prevent Badal Chandra Jana and others from constructing permanent structure over plot number 433, J.L. No. 256 Khatian No. 108, 506, 988, 495 and 1057 of Mouza-Kalikapur under Tamluk police station. M.P. Case No. 108 of 2019 under Section 144(2) of Cr.P.C was started against the other parties Badal Chandra Jana and others, thereupon.

4. In the existing facts and circumstances the Ld. Executive Magistrate, Tamluk observed an apprehension of breach in peace and tranquility prevailing in the locality. He also observed that 0.1 decimal of land under Daag No. 433, Mouza-Kalikapur J.L. No. 256 was under active possession of the petitioners. Therefore, he directed the O.C Tamluk police station to maintain peace and tranquility in the area and submit report and also directed the B.L & L.R.O. Tamluk to submit a detailed report of the suit land, vide his order dated 01.03.2019.

5. In addition to that, petitioner instituted a Title Suit 71 of 2019 on 25.03.2019, for

a. declaration of title of petitioners over the scheduled land under Daag No. 433, Mouza-Kalikapur J.L. No. 256, and

b. the permanent injunction against defendants Badal Chandra Jana, in respect of “Ka/1” scheduled property. This Suit is pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) 1st Court, Tamluk.

6. The specific case of petitioners was that the scheduled property originally belonged to one Govinda Rana. On his demise the shares in the property equally devolved upon his four sons namely (i) Radhanath, (ii) Ramprasad (iii) Batakrishna and (iv) Krishna Prasad. After demise of Batakrishna, his share was further devolved on his son Bijay Krishna. Accordingly, the names of Radhanath, Ram Prasad, Bijoy Krishna and Krishna Prasad were entered into the LR & ROR.

7. Subsequently, after demise of Radhanath, Ram Prasad and Krishna Prasad, their shares in the land, including the suit lands under A, B, C and C/1 strip, had devolved upon the plaintiffs/ petitioners to the extent of their respective shares, determinable as per the applicable law of inheritance. As such, they acquired right, title and interest on the scheduled property.

8. The said right, title and interest of petitioners on the A, B, C and C/1 strip of lands were clouded by the opposite parties. They claimed that scheduled lands were a part and parcel of their plots being number 430, 429 and 432, while the Petitioners claimed it to be a part and parcel of their plot number 428, 433 and 431.

9. To resolve the dispute, petitioner prayed for declaration of his right, title, interest on the scheduled