IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a Magistrate's cognizance of a complaint is valid if there is a prima facie case, and that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C should not be used to stifle legitimate prosecutions.

JUDGMENT :

(Mitali Thakuria, J.) :

Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Mr. R. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking for quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.R. Case No. 573/2023, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S), Nagaon.

3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on a complaint lodged by the respondent alleging inter-alia that the accused/petitioner along with one Mukul Das, proposed to sell 18 lessas of their land covered by Dag No. 167 of Periodic Patta No. 138 of Dimoroguri Kissam District Nagaon and according, the respondent along with 3(three) brothers agreed to purchase the land. Accordingly, for consideration amount was fixed at Rs.32,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty-two lakhs), and an agreement for sale of land in question was executed vide Registered Sale Deed No. 2080 dated 29.06.2022. On that very day, the respondent paid Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lakhs) which was received by the accused/petitioners and agreed that sale permission would be procured within 3 (three) months and thereafter, the accused/petitioners would receive the remaining 12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakh). In the said agreement, it was stated that the land is free from all encumbrances. After a lapse of3(three) months, when the responded contacted the accused/petitioners, they kept making excuses and took time for executing the sale deed. Accordingly, suspicion arose and the respondent approached the Nagaon Circle Office and then, it was found that one Biswajit Saha had submitted an online objection against the sale of the land, on being asked the accused/petitioners admitted the transaction with one Biswajit Saha and stated that the transaction would be cleared by April, 2023 and thereafter, they will obtain the permission to execute the sale deed. But, even after the lapse of months of April, when the respondent and his brothers approached the accused/petitioners, they abused the respondent and his brothers with a filthy language and also threatened to kill them with the help of some organization. Thereafter, on 07.06.2023 subsequently, the respondent also came to know that a civil suit is pending between the accused/petitioners and one Biswajit Saha being T.S. No. 14/22. Thus, the accused/petitioners had suppressed the entire fact and with the intention to cheat and misappropriate the money of the respondent, the accused/petitioners entered into agreement for sale of the particular plot of land which they already sold to one Biswajit Saha.

4. After receiving the complaint, the respondent was examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Nagaon and finding a prima facie case cognizance has been taken against the accused/petitioners as well as one Mukul Das under Section 420/506/34 IPC vide order dated 12.06.2023 and summons were accordingly issued.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to issue of summons, the learned Court below did not conduct any enquiry or investigation required under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and arrived at an erroneous decision and cognizance has been taken. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not mandatory when the accused persons reside in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. But, in the instant case where some factual issues are involved, the inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is very much essential. He however, submitted that the learned Court below made no effort in deciding as to whether there is any actual truth in the allegations levelled by the respondent. In this context, he also relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported vide (2013)2SCC 488 in the case of National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz.

6. It is further submitted that the actual fact of the case is cleverly distorted by the respondent. The actual fact