The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order passed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. is an order of interlocutory nature and does not attract the bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment also emphasizes the right to fair trial for all parties involved.

Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. In this petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, two petitioners namely, M/S Magus Construction Private Limited and Shri Anup Kumar Nath, have challenged the correctness or otherwise of the order, dated 16.07.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, in Complaint Case No. 1729C/2012. It is to be mentioned here that vide impugned order, the learned Court below had allowed the petition No. 6384, dated 06.04.2018, filed by the respondent under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:

“The respondent No. 2, Mrs. Banita B. Dutta, has instituted a complaint case being C.R. Case No. 1729c/2012, under Sections 406/468/474 of the IPC against the present petitioners alleging inter-alia amongst others that she had purchased one Flat from the respondent No. 1 vide Sale Deed No. 10208/2007. Thereafter, the petitioners again sold the said Flat to other persons vide Sale Deed No. 14330/2008. Upon the said complaint C.R. Case No. 1729c/2012 has been registered and the same is pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Upon the said complainant under Sections 406/468/474 of the IPC, the learned court below had taken cognizance of the offences under section 406/468/474 IPC. Thereafter, in due course, the learned court below had framed charge against the petitioners under section 406 IPC only and on being read and explained over the petitioners have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Then after examination of one witness, the respondent No. 2 had filed two petitions one being petition No. 1817 dated 01.06.2014 for calling Deed No. 4870/2004 and 10208/07 and 14330/08 and another being petition No. 2838 dated 13.08.2014, for calling for Deed Nos. 310/09 and 5356/2009, respectively. Then after hearing both the parties the learned court below had allowed the petition No. 1817 dated 01.06.2014, but dismissed the petition No. 2828 dated 13.08.2014, which was in respect of the Deed Nos. 310/09 and 5356/2009, vide order dated 23.09.2014.

Thereafter, again the respondent No. 2 had filed similar petition, being petition No. 6384, on 06.04.2018 under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. praying for calling the Deed No. 5356/2009 from the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Guwahati. But, this time the learned court below had allowed the petition No. 6384, vide order dated 16.07.2018, ignoring the previous order dated 23.09.2014 by which earlier prayer was rejected.”

4. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this court for quashing the proceeding, mainly on the following grounds, that:-

(i) The learned court below has erred in law and in facts while passing the impugned order, resulting abuse of the law and miscarriage of justice;

(ii) The learned court below, without considering the provisions in Cr.P.C. had allowed the petition though it cannot review its earlier order;

(iii) For that the learned court below, while passing the impugned order dated 16.07.2018, has absolutely ignored the previous order dated 23.09.2014 by virtue of which the prayer for calling for Deed No. 5356/2009 was rejected by the same court on 23.09.2014 and as such impugned order dated 16.07.2018 is liable to be set aside and quashed;

(iv) The impugned order was passed in most perfunctory and mechanical manner and without application of mind; and

(v) For that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the respondent No. 2/complainant has suppressed the order dated 23.09.2014 by virtue of which the prayer for calling for Deed No. 5356/09 has already been rejected without any liberty or leave which has attained its finality and as such, impugned order dated 16.07.2018 al