JUDGMENT :

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.

1. The petitioners herein are aggrieved with the proceeding being GR Case no. 4210 of 2024 under section 465/467/468 /471 /420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code which is presently pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.

2. Opposite party no.2 herein filed a written complaint on 25th August, 2024 alleging interalia that the petitioners herein along with other co accused have jointly entered into criminal conspiracy with each other and for the purpose of their wrongful gain, have jointly cheated the OP No.2 and his other brothers and sisters who being the descendants of Sukeshari Ray became rightful owners of the property left by their grandfather Gegaru Singh Das and Kakaru Singh Das. It has been alleged further that one of the co accused Shankar Chourasia have obtained a forged deed being no. 3022 dated 07th April 1963 and on the basis of said forged deed, the accused persons are also causing wrongful loss to the complainant and his brothers and sisters. On the basis of said complaint aforesaid investigation started.

3. Mr. Bhattacharya learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the written complaint is frivolous harassive and an attempt to criminalize civil dispute. The petitioners case is that one Kekaru Singh Das and Gegaru Singh Das both sons of Chandra Singh Das were admittedly recorded tenants in respect of landed property, measuring 23.61 acres within Mouza Debagram. According to petitioners said owners executed a registered deed of sale in favour of one Sankar Chourasia being aforesaid deed no. 3022 dated 7th April 1963 and transferred 5 acres 66 decimal of land out of total 23.61 acres of land. Said Shankar after purchase duly recorded his name as owner in the land records and thereafter on the basis of Shankar’s application the appropriate authority allowed his prayer for conversion from “Danga” and “Dahala” to “Industry”. Thereafter one M/S Joy Matadi Enterprise had availed credit facility from IDBI Bank and said Shankar Chourasia became the guarantor of the said loan and to secure the loan Shankar had mortgaged his said purchased land. Due to creation of certain disturbances regarding Shankars peaceful possession in the said property, he filed TS no. 96 of 2012 before Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jalpaiguri. Thereafter some of the defendants in T.S 96 of 2012 filed a suit being T.S 125 of 2012 before the appropriate Civil Court against Shankar Chourasia and 5 others and in the said suit the main ground of challenge, taken by the plaintiffs was that the deed No.3022 dated 07.04.1963 is a forged deed and not valid and hence any execution of Title deed by Shankar transferring said property is not valid. By a judgment dated 30th January, 2021, the trial court was pleased to dismiss the said suit on contest. Against the said judgment dated 30th January, 2021, the plaintiffs preferred appeal before the learned District Judge, Jalpaiguri being TA no. 6 of 2021, but said appeal was dismissed for default. The appellants have preferred an application for restoration of the appeal, which is pending for adjudication.

4. In the meantime Mrs. Jay Matadi Enterprise who had taken loan was unable to repay the said loan and as a result recovery proceedings were initiated by the bank against the borrower as well as against the guarantor Shankar Chourasia.

5. Further case of the petitioners is that manager of IDBI bank by a letter dated 23rd November, 2011 addressed to additional District Sub Registrar, Jalpaiguri has requested to furnish information whether the certified copy of the said deed can be obtained and in reply it was informed that page no. 18-20 of volume 31 is badly damaged and pages are rotten due to the devastating flood of 1968 in Jalpaiguri Town.

6. Since neither said Mrs. Jay Matadi Enterprise nor Shankar Chourasia was able to repay the loan to IDBI Bank the petitioners along with some others had repaid the o