Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2013, registered for the offence punishable under sections 406, 420, 464, 466, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 27.06.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, by which non bailable warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioner as also the order dated 19.12.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Revision No. 216 of 2015, by which issuance of proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. was affirmed. In addition to the above prayers, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 26.10.2015, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, by which process under section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued.

3. A complaint case was initially instituted by the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 being complaint case no. 1915 of 2013, which was referred to the police for instituting an FIR under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, Lower Bazar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2013 was instituted. The allegation made in the FIR is that the petitioner claiming himself to be an Income-tax practitioner had taken a sum of Rs.40.00 lakhs to Rs.50 lakhs from the complainants for making payment of income tax but he never furnished any challans and returns submitted with the Income-tax Department. It was also alleged that the complainants had subsequently made another payment of Rs.10 lacs for payment of advance tax. The complainants could later on come to know that the petitioner had cheated them and only 10% of the amount towards deposition of income tax had been submitted. It is alleged that when the complainants had asked the petitioner to reimburse the cash amount, which was realized for last 6-7 years, the same was refused and ultimately the complaint case was instituted.

4. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the FIR itself is vague as no specific details have been given with respect to income tax of the complainants and also with respect to break up of the income, for which tax was collected by the petitioner. It has been submitted that till 2013, the assessee was required to sign on the form and the complainants must have been aware of the procedure with respect to deposit of tax more so when they are professional doctors. It has further been submitted that prior to institution of the FIR, an agreement was entered into and the contents of the agreement and the allegations made in the FIR are same and similar and when once compromise has been entered into for the same set of allegations, criminal prosecution cannot proceed. It has also been submitted that issuance of proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. and processes under section 83 Cr.P.C. are both bad in law as none of the said orders reflect subjective satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. Learned counsel submits that the Revisional Court had also not properly considered this aspect of the matter while dismissing the revision and affirming the order, by which proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been affirmed.

5. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel, appearing for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, has submitted that at this stage when the FIR has merely been instituted, the entire criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. It has been submitted that whatever stand has been taken by the petitioner is by way of his defence and at best it can be decided by the trial court. It has been submitted that appreciation of the evidence in a summary proceeding is not permissible and in fact no criminal proceeding can be stifled except in rare and compelling circumstances. It has further been submitted that contention of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to compromise, which was entered into prior to institution of FIR, cannot be decided at this stage as the same is the defenc