To substantiate IPC offences, essential elements must be satisfied; mere allegations are insufficient to continue criminal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS , 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil in connection with C.C. Case No. 435 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 323, 504, 506, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that petitioners purchased the property sold to them by co-accused namely Bibi Rupu without partition of the property; in which share is claimed by the complainant.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are all false. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of being entrusted with any property and in the absence of the same, the question of dishonest misappropriation of the property does not arise and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of deceiving anybody or inducing any person deceived to part with any property hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is absolutely no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt to anybody and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no allegation against the petitioners of intentionally insulting anybody or committing criminal intimidation and in the absence of the same, the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned A.C.J.M., Chandil is made out against the petitioner, either in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons or in criminal conspiracy with them therefore, continuation of the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. The learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which prima facie case is found by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandil. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another