B.D. Agarwal, J.

1. Both the Criminal Petitions, having arisen out of the same criminal proceeding are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The criminal petitions have been filed by two set of accused persons under Section 482 read with Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 3580 of 2010 under Sections 420/506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate No. 1 (Sadar), Kamrup, Guwahati.

3. The Criminal Petition No. 79 of 2011 has been filed by one accused, whereas Criminal Petition No. 154 of 2011 has been filed by ten accused persons, out of twelve accused persons. In this way, one of the accused persons, namely, Sanjiv Lal Baruah is not a party in these proceedings.

4. Heard Mr. J. Roy and Mr. P. Kataky, learned Counsels for the petitioners in their respective cases. The complainant/respondent was represented by Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel.

5. I have also gone through the complaint petition, initial statements of the witnesses and all other documents filed by the petitioners in the criminal petitions.

6. Since the maintainability of the criminal proceedings primarily rests upon the facts of the case, I deem it proper to discuss the facts of the present case, which are little bit peculiar. Factual matrix is as below:

7. The respondent herein purchased two plots of land vide sale deeds dated 28.07.2006 and 31.07.2006. Both the lands are contagious to each other and covered by same Dag and Patta numbers. Although the land stood in the name of 25 co-pattadars, the sale deeds were executed by five persons on the basis of Power of Attorney. The sale deeds were preceded by execution of an agreement for sale. As per the recitation of the sale deeds, the respondent was put in physical possession of the land, which were vacant on the date of execution of sale deeds. Since there was mistake in the schedule of the land in the sale deed dated 28.07.2006, a rectification deed was executed on 30.08.2006.

8. After the formalities of transfer of title of land were over, the respondent noticed that three persons had occupied the land and they had started construction activities on their own. Accordingly, on 27.09.2006, the respondent filed Title Suit No. 199 of 2006 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati against the alleged trespassers, seeking a decree, inter-alia, for declaration of plaintiffs' right, title and recovery of khas possession of the land. In the said suit, five accused persons who had executed the sale deeds were also impleaded as proforma defendants. After filing of the written statement by the private respondents, the said suit was withdrawn on 25.03.2009. Instead of filing a fresh title suit, the respondent filed a money suit against the accused persons, seeking a decree to declare the sale deeds as null and void and for refund of sale consideration and compensation. The suit has been registered as Money Suit No. 80 of 2009 and pending in the Court of Civil Judge, No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati. In the suit, the alleged trespassers have been impleaded as proforma defendants. The Money Suit was filed on 30.07.2009 and in this suit, the defendant No. 1, Smti Heera Baruah submitted her written statement on 10.11.2009. Nearly after one year of the filing of the written statement, complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was filed on 04.10.10.

9. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing in Criminal petition No. 79 of 2011 submitted that the criminal complaint has been filed with ulterior motive to pressurize the accused persons to settle civil dispute and wreck vengeance due to illegal encroachment and occupation of the suit land by unauthorised persons. The learned Counsel also submitted that the complaint has been filed nearly after 4 1/2 years of execution of the sale deeds and on this ground alone, the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed. Referrin