The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used, and the trial court should judge the culpability based on evidence.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. Pran Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. KK Parasar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1.

2. The petitioners have filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of charge sheet bearing No. 12/2019, dated 28.02.2019 in connection with Raha P.S. Case No. 103/2018 under Sections 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC and order dated 15.05.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon and order dated 16.05.2019, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon in P.R.C. No. 533/2019 (Corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3183/2018) taking cognizance of the instant case and issuing summons to the petitioners under the aforesaid Sections of law.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the father of the petitioners late Rabindra Kumar Dhar purchased a plot of land measuring 15 Lechas situated at Patta No. 7, Dag No. 15 under Raha Police Station at Village-Chaparmukh Town in the District of Nagaon, Assam from the father of the respondent No. 2, late Subodh Chandra Dutta vide registered Deed of Sale bearing No. 2766, dated 18.05.1995.

4. After purchasing the said plot of land, the father of the petitioners did not apply for mutation of the said plot of land in his name. However, the petitioners alongwith their father were residing therein by constructing their own house. Subsequent thereto, on 25.07.2005, the father of the petitioners passed away. After the death of father of the petitioners, when the petitioners came to know that the aforesaid plot of land has not been mutated, they applied for mutation of their names in the Jamabandi. However, out of the bona fide mistake, the petitioners while submitting their application mistakenly signed the name of their late father. Upon realizing their mistake, the petitioners filed an application dated 05.04.2018 addressed to the Circle Officer, Raha praying therein for withdrawal of their earlier application for mutation.

5. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Raha issued notices under Section 52 of the Land and Revenue Regulation to the family members of the respondent No. 2. However, instead of writing the area of land as 15 Lechas, the area of the land was written as 1 Katha 10 Lechas by the officials of the Circle Office, Raha. However, the petitioners did not have any knowledge. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 appeared before the Cirlce Officer, Raha informing that his father i.e. late Subodh Chandra Dutta had expired. Furthermore, in the said order, dated 08.09.2018, it was categorically observed by the Circle Officer, Raha which is reproduced herein below:-

“…..The 2nd Party is told that due to system error the Office Mutation Case got registered thrice and hence though the applicant applied for 15 Lechas, the notice was generated for 1 Katha 10 Lechas. This is regretted.”

6. It is also stated in the petition that a perusal of the aforesaid order clearly brings forth that the fact of mention of the area of 1 Katha 10 Lechas in the notice was not due to the fault on the part of the petitioners but it was a mistake on the part of the officials of the Circle Office, Raha as such no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the petitioners. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 lodged an ejahar before the Officer-in-Charge of Raha Police Station alleging that the petitioners in connivance with the officials of the Circle Office, Raha applied for mutation of a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas of land instead of 15 Lechas of land. On the basis of the aforesaid ejahar, a case was registered by the Raha Police Station being Raha P.S. Case No. 103/2018. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted bearing No. 12/2019, dated 28.02.2019 in connection with Raha P.S. Case No. 103/2018 under Sections 420/468/471/120B/34 IPC.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while taking cognizance of the instant case, the learned court below failed to consider the fact that the pe