Point of Law: Bail Application - Inherent jurisdiction of Court - Scope and ambit of powers of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been enunciated and reiterated by this Court in a series of decisions - Thus, it would suffice to state that though powers possessed by High Courts under said provisions are wide but they should be exercised in appropriate cases, i.e. ex debito justitiae, to do real and substantial justice for administration of which courts alone exist.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings of C.T. Case No. 4110 of 2020 pending before the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar, which arises out of Badagada P.S. Case No. 272 of 2020 under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468/34 IPC and all proceedings consequent thereto.

2. The allegations in the FIR are summarised herein-below:

(a) The complainant/opposite party No. 2, lodged a complaint on 26.09.2020 at Badagada P.S. The contents of the complaint as set out implicates petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 for committing offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 465, 468/34 of the IPC.

(b) According to the complainant/opposite party No. 2, she was induced by petitioner No. 1 to jointly purchase a plot situated at Khata No. 450/92, Chaka No. 221, Plot No. 486, area Ac. 1.790 decs. in Mouza-Brahman Jharilo from one Subash Chandra Patra, for a total consideration of Rupees 1,35,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs Only). An agreement to the effect was entered into on 30.11.2015 between the land owner, one Subash Chandra Patra of one part and the opposite party No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 of the other part to which petitioner no. 1 was a witness. Opposite party No. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 26,00,000/- through cheque and partly through cash to the land owner and petitioner No. 2 paid a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- to the land owner, after which it was stipulated that the balance amount of Rs. 91,00,000/- would be paid to the land owner within a period of four months, i.e. by 30.03.2016. The agreement and mutual understanding between the opposite party No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 further stipulated that they would eventually sell the plot themselves and the sale proceeds would be shared by them in the ratio of 59:41.

(c) However, they failed to pay the land owner the balance amount within the stipulated time, which led the land owner to file C.S. No. 1831 of 2016 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bhubaneswar. A compromise was arrived at by the parties wherein the agreement dated 30.11.2015 stood nullified and it was agreed that the present opposite party No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 would pay the land owner a sum of Rs. 95,00,000/- out of which a sum of Rs. 64,00,000/- was to be remitted on the date of drawing up of the compromise and the remaining Rs. 31,00,000/- was undertaken to be paid within a period of two and half months. It was also agreed that the outstanding amount of Rs. 31,00,000/- payable to the land owner would be raised by sub-dividing the plot and selling the sub-plots to various other buyers. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the aforesaid compromise on 22.10.2016.

(d) The complainant has claimed that the petitioners, thereafter, put her off every time she inquired about the execution of the Sale Deed and sale proceeds. Subsequently, after passage of some time, the complainant learnt that the land owner had died and before his death, the petitioners had jointly purchased the plot in their names along with others without her knowledge. Furthermore, they had re-sold the property to multiple parties without her consent and had retained all the sale proceeds themselves, thereby cheating the complainant and deriving unlawful gains. The complainant also alleges that the petitioners have criminally intimidated her.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners earnestly contended that the allegations in the FIR are false and have been lodged with an ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the petitioners. It was submitted that the opposite party No. 2 had failed to pay the land owner, in the first instance, thereby necessitating the filing of C.S. No. 1831 of 2016 by the land owner. In the compromise arrived at, as a result of the Civil Suit above-mentioned, it is alleged that the opposite party No. 2 had requested that the amount invested by her be refunded back by the said owner. Further, the learned counsel f