JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

1. Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, assisted by Mr. Arenlong, learned counsel and Mr. K. Angami, learned P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners in both the revision applications have been named in the FIR dated 15.01.2019, registered as Diphupar PS Case No. 3/2019. The contention of the petitioner in both the petitions is that the perusal of the said FIR would not disclose any offence against the petitioners and the materials on the basis on which the FIR has been registered also would not disclose that the petitioners had anything to do with the amount of Rs. 8,45,36,437/- paid by the complainant, i.e. respondent No. 2 to Shri Nitin Dani's family for acquiring a property. It is on the basis of the said contention that both the petitions have been filed for quashing of the FIR dated 15.01.2019 registered under Sections 420/406/120 B/34 IPC registered as Diphupar PS Case No. 3/2019.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an established principle of law that if the FIR/complaint in question does not disclose a cognizable offence or offence of any kind, this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 would quash the said FIR. He submits that the perusal of the said FIR which have been registered under Sections 420/406/120 B/34 IPC would not disclose any commission of an offence in so far as the petitioners are concerned and as such, the said FIR is required to be quashed. In that regard he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Harilal Hiralal Bhagwati vs. CBI, New Delhi, reported in (2003) 5 SCC 257, more particularly to paragraph 40 of the said judgment. He further submits that the documents enclosed to the said FIR would show that the respondent No. 2 had dealings only with one Smti. Amita Dani and Shri Anand Dani represented by Shri Nitin Dani and it would be apparent from a perusal of the deed of agreement dated 23.12.2015 executed between the respondent No. 2 and Smti. Amita Dani and Shri Anand Dani. He further submits that the letter dated 05.10.2018, reference to which have been made in the said FIR is a communication issued by the petitioners to Shri Nitin Dani, Smti. Amita Dani and Shri Anand Dani and that has nothing to do with the respondent No. 2 and in fact, there is not even a single reference also so far as the respondent No. 2 is concerned. He, therefore, submits that the filing of the instant FIR against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court for which he refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajanlal vs. State of Haryana, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, more particularly to paragraph 102. He submits that when a criminal proceeding is being initiated on the face of which is an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court can exercise the jurisdiction both under Article 226 of the Constitution as well as Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the said criminal proceedings. He further submits that the order dated 20.01.2019, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dimapur, whereby the warrant of arrest/production warrant/transit warrant was issued against the petitioners was done mechanically without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 41(A) of the Code.

4. Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel, on the other hand submits that the perusal of the impugned FIR would show that an offence has been committed. He submits that it is not the case of the petitioners that there is no offence being committed but it is the case of the petitioners that no offence is disclosed in so far as against the petitioners and as such, the requirement for quashing of an FIR or exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 does not arise in as much as the FIR discloses the commission of an offence. He further submits that the parameters for