IMPORTANT POINT
The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not be used to conduct a mini trial, and a prima facie case should be established from the material collected during the investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B. Bucha, the petitioner in person. Also heard Mr. K. K. Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying for quashing of the impugned FIR dated 05.08.2021 registered as Paltan Bazar P. S. Case No. 710/2021, under Sections 406/420 of IPC and its subsequent proceedings.

3. The brief fact of the case is that;

3.1. On 28.05.2021, the informant/respondent No.2 namely Sri Pramod Bora lodged an FIR against the accused/petitioner before the Officer-In-Charge of Nagaon Sadar Police Station, Nagaon, Assam alleging inter alia that the informant had entered into a registered agreement for sale being Registered Deed No.6861/2011 dated 02.08.2011 with M/S Asheerbad Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Maligaon, Guwahati represented by one of its’ Director Sri Rabindra Nath Sharma, son of Lt. Pitambar Sharma for purchase of residential 3 BHK Flat No.4-A on Fourth Floor, Dwarka Enclave, Maligaon. It is stated that from the very day of booking the Flat, the accused/petitioner, who introduced the informant as Co-Developer of the project was looking after all the matter relating to payment and execution of documents etc. from the informant’s side and all the transactions were done through the accused/petitioner. It is further stated that the informant had paid a substantial amount towards consideration of the Flat to the aforesaid Developer/Builder at the time of registration of the agreement and on subsequent dates.

3.2. It is further stated that after payment of substantial amount to the Developer/Builder through the accused/petitioner, the informant had decided to execute the final Sale Deed to be done in his favour and asked the accused/petitioner to receive the balance amount on one single installment for execution of the final sale deed. But, the accused/petitioner informed the informant that due to pendency of a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court; all the deeds regarding the settlement of land etc. are being stayed by the said Court. Thereafter, the informant also tried to enquire about the present status of the pending writ petition, but, the accused/petitioner tried to avoid the quarries on various occasion.

3.3. Further, on 07.04.2021, the informant received a letter from Sri Rabindra Nath Sharma, one of the Director of the Developer/Builder of the company, who stated that the money has already been refunded to the informant as the accused/petitioner had informed the company that the present informant does not want to purchase the flat and he wants to refund back the amount paid by the informant. On the basis of the said information, the Developer/Builder had refunded the amount paid by the informant towards the purchase of flat to the accused/petitioner on installment from the month of January, 2015 to December, 2015.

3.4. But, it has been alleged by the informant that he never instructed the accused/petitioner to cancel the proposal of purchasing flats nor he wanted any refund of money. Rather, he wanted to execute the sale Deed in his favour and proposed for execution of final sale deed. Thereafter, only, the informant came to know that the accused/petitioner had withdrawn the entire refundable amount payable to the informant and the accused/petitioner never paid any amount to the informant till the date of lodging of FIR. Subsequently, the informant came to know that the flat which was booked by him was sold to a third party long back.

3.5. It is further stated that the informant tried to contact with the accused/petitioner in this regard but could not contacted. Later on, the informant came to know that the accused/petitioner had also cheated one Sri Munindra Saikia (one purchaser of flat in Dwarka Enclave), in the same manner and had sold his flat without the knowledge of the aforesaid person. Thus, it has been alleged that the accused/petitioner had intentionally and willfu