JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr D C Kath Hazarika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the petitioners and Mr P K Singha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

2. Both the criminal petitions have been taken up together as they relate to the same set of incidents.

3. The criminal petitions, being Criminal Petition No. 156 of 2018 and Criminal Petition No. 242 of 2018, are being filed under Section 482 CrPC, 1973, for quashing of Negotiable Instrument proceeding, vide NI Case No. 6 of 2017 and NI Case No. 7 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned Additional CJM, Sonitpur, Tezpur, to avoid the abuse of process of law and to secure ends of justice.

4. The instant application, being Criminal Petition No. 156 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner, Pradip Patangia for quashing of the written complaint dated 24.01.2017, against him under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, referred to as “the NI Act”), before the learned CJM, Sonitpur, Tezpur (Assam), which has been registered as NI Case No. 6 of 2017, whereby the complainant has claimed for payment of alleged legally enforceable debt.

5. The criminal petition, being Criminal Petition No. 242 of 2018, is being filed by the petitioner Gul Kumar Kalita @ Papu Kalita for quashing of the complaint dated 24.01.2017, filed by the respondent/complainant against him under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act, before the learned CJM, Sonitpur, Tezpur (Assam), vide NI Case No. 07 of 2017, whereby the complainant has claimed for payment of alleged legally enforceable debt.

6. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/ complainant in consultation with her husband decided to buy a plot of land to build their dwelling house. The petitioner, Pradip Patangia and his friend, Gul Kumar Kalita @ Pappu Kalita, who deal in lands, having come to know about the respondent/complainant’s desire for purchasing a suitable plot of land, approached the respondent/complainant and her husband with an offer of sale of a plot of land. They offered a plot of land measuring 2 kathas covered under Dag No. 525 of P.P. No. 124, situated at Harigaon. They told her that the owners of the said land had executed a Power of Attorney No. 28 dated 28.02.2014, in favour of Gul Kumar Kalita, which was duly registered before the Sr. Sub-Registrar, Sonitpur. By the said Power of Attorney, the owners of the said land bestowed all the powers to Gul Kumar Kalita, to take decision upon the said land. Thereafter, the complainant and her husband talked with both the petitioners and the price of the land was fixed at Rs. 13,60,000/-(Rupees Thirteen Lacs Sixty Thousand) only. The petitioners requested for advance money and the complainant and the petitioner, Gul Kumar Kalita entered into an agreement for sale, which was duly notarized vide Sl. No. 227/2015. On the date of execution of the sale deed, the respondent/complainant paid a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs Sixty Thousand) only vide Cheque Nos. 119616 & 119617, drawn on SBI, Tezpur Branch, in favour of the petitioner, Gul Kumar Kalita. Both the petitioners had given the understanding that the amount would be shared equally even if the cheque were issued to only one of them. The petitioners further agreed and assured to obtain necessary permission from the concerned offices.

7. The petitioners during the first week of October, 2015, approached the respondent/complainant and offered to sell another plot of land measuring 1 katha covered under Dag No. 524 of P.P. No. 124, which is adjacent to the earlier land. The respondent/complainant found the offer suitable and agreed to purchase the same. The price of the said land was fixed at Rs. 6,80,000/-(Rupees Six Lacs Eighty Thousand) Only. The petitioners were doing the dealings together. A request for advance money was made and an agreement between the respondent/complainant and the petitioners was entered into on 01.12.2015, which also duly notarized vide Sl. No. 1323/2015, dated 03.