Ajit Borthakur, J.

Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party.

2. By the instant application filed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 07.09.2016, passed in Complaint Case No.2294c/2016 by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) at Gauhati and order, dated 15.11.2016, as well as the proceeding in Complaint Case No. 229472016 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM (1), Kamrup (M) at Gauhati.

3. The petitioner's case precisely is that the learned SDJM (I), Kamrup (M), Gauhati took cognizance of the said case being CR 229472016 lodged by the complainant/opposite party herein and issued summons to the petitioner under Section 420 IPC. The contention of the petitioner is that the opposite party along with her husband, namely, Naba Kumar Das, on 02.08.2013, approached the petitioner, who is one of the partners of the firm M/S Kirti Construction and after negotiation, they agreed to purchase a flat and thereupon, the husband of the opposite party, as per the terms and conditions, by way of advance payment, handed over a Cheque of Rs. 9 Lacs, dated 02.08.2013, bearing No.015253 drawn on IDBI Bank from his own account and booked a flat measuring 1040 sq.ft. @ Rs. 2,550/- per sq.ft. in the joint name of himself and his wife i.e, the opposite party herein, against which, the petitioner issued money receipt to the complainant. However, the complainant failed to deposit the required balance amount within the stipulated time.

4. Therefore, on the request of the husband of the opposite party, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 2 Lacs, as part payment to the husband of the complainant-opposite party herein, vide Cheque No.029939, dated 10.09.2014 drawn on Axis Bank. The husband of the complainant-opposite party acknowledged the said cheque amount in writing and waived their right over the said flat. However, on 25.05.2016, the petitioner received a notice through the learned Advocate of the complainant-opposite party herein I making certain baseless and false allegations against the petitioner and demanded Rs. 91 Lacs within 10 days of receipt of the notice. I Subsequently, on 26.7.2016, the opposite party filed a complaint case against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

5. According to the petitioner, the husband of the complainant/opposite party herein personally approached the petitioner and told that he had no knowledge about the complaint case and straight way rejected the claim of the opposite party as the advance payment was made from his personal account and even did not authorize his wife/opposite party to I file the said complaint.

6. Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations of the complainant/opposite party are out and out a dispute of civil nature between the parties arising out of breach of contract and therefore, no offence under Section 420 IPC has been made out against the petitioner. He further submits that in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Pranjyoti Bhuyan v. State of Assam & Anr. reported in (2014) 3 GLR 329, the criminal proceeding drawn against the petitioner may be quashed.

7. Countering the above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that the instant petition is not maintainable as the husband of the opposite party has not been impleaded as party respondent herein as he was also a party to the booking of the flat in question. According to Mr. Gogoi, learned counsel for the opposite party, the petitioner played deception on the opposite party as he failed to deliver the flat to her as per the agreement made at the time of accepting the advance money of Rs. 9 Lacs from her.

8. The impugned order passed by the learned Special