The court emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be sparingly exercised and that the court should not interfere with the investigation unless no cognizable offence is disclosed. It also highlighted that the court should not conduct a mini-trial at the stage of quashing the F.I.R.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No. 1 and Mr. A. K. Maheswari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under Sections 482/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 20.09.2016, lodged by the respondent No. 2, which was registered under Jamuguri Police Station, being Jamuguri P.S. Case No. 130/2016 (Corresponding G.R. Case No. 3090/2016), under Sections 306/403/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner No. 1 is a practicing advocate and he started practicing as an advocate in the Tezpur Bar Association in the year 2006. The petitioner No. 2 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 and is a prominent businessman in the locality and both the petitioners have name and fame in the society. On 19.09.2016, one Smti Usha Maheswari, wife of Late Sitaram Maheswari, lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-In-Charge, Jamuguri Police Station, alleging interaliathat her son committed suicide due to pressure and coercion by the accused/petitioners. It is alleged that an agreement for sale was made in favour of the accused/petitioners by the informant and her son-Late Ramesh Kumar Maheswari, which was not supplied to them. After receiving the said F.I.R., the Officer-In-Charge, Jamuguri Police Station, registered a case, being Jamuguri P.S. Case No. 130/2016, under Sections 306/403/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and started investigation.

4. After registration of the said case, due to apprehension of arrest, both the petitioners filed an anticipatory bail application before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, and the learned Court below, after perusal of the Case Diary, granted both the petitioners with the privilege of pre-arrest bail vide its order dated 04.10.2016, and after obtaining the anticipatory bail, the petitioners also appeared before the I.O. and co-operated in the investigation as and when required.

5. It is further stated that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence as stated in the F.I.R. and the case has been lodged with some false and fabricated story only to harass the present petitioners. The petitioners had good talking terms and business relation with the informant/ respondent No. 2. In the year 2016, the son of the respondent No. 2, i.e. the deceased-Ramesh Kumar Maheswari, visited to the house of the petitioner No. 1 and offered a proposal to sale a plot of land measuring 2 Katha 13 Lessas, situated in village Deka Sundar under Borbhagia Mauza, District Sonitpur. After consultation with the petitioner No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 decided to purchase the said plot of land jointly with the petitioner No. 2 with the sale consideration price of Rs. 35,50,000/-(Rupees thirty five lakhs fifty thousand) only. Accordingly, on 20.08.2016, an agreement for sale was made between the parties and the petitioner No. 1 drafted the sale deed and after putting signatures on the sale deed, the petitioners also paid an amount of Rs. 34,50,000/-(Rupees thirty four lakhs fifty thousand) only out of Rs. 35,50,000/-(Rupees thirty five lakhs fifty thousand) only to the respondent and her son on 20.08.2016. Accordingly, they also tendered written acknowledgement of receipt of money. But the complainant, due to interference of her family members, after the unfortunate incident of suicide, lodged the F.I.R. against the present petitioners. The petitioner No. 2 was also called by the respondent No. 2 and her brother to execute some set of documents after 25 days of that unfortunate incident. But, after a long discussion with the informant and her brother, the present petitioners were shocked to learn that the present F.I.R. has been lodged against them. It is reiterated that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence and the F.I.R