ORDER

Date : 09-02-2018 This is an application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, seeking quashment of the CR Case No. 2801/2016, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (Metro), and the order, dated 17.09.2016 passed therein taking cognizance of the offences against the present accused-petitioners under Sections

420/406/34 of the IPC.

Heard Mr. NH Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners. Also heard Mr. PS Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam as well as Mr. M Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

I have perused the petition as well as the annexures furnished therewith including the complaint sought to be quashed.

The fact of the complaint case is that the respondent No. 2 is an old woman who has nobody to look after her, and therefore, at the request of the present petitioners, she allowed them to stay with her in her house. With the passage of time, they gained faith of the complainant and they wanted her to execute an agreement for construction of a multistoried building over her land through a builder. Allegedly, she was brought to the office of the Sub-Register for registration of the agreement, but, in fact, as alleged, taking advantage of her simplicity and poor eye sight, instead of an agreement, a sale deed got executed and thereafter they have changed their behavior towards her. They also obtained an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the complainant as loan, but, on demand they refused to pay the same and rather threatened her. She had to take refuge in the house of her elder sister. There is an averment in the complaint that she was assured by the accused-petitioners that after construction of the multistoried building, she will be given a flat there and till completion of the multistoried building, she was required to stay in a rented house, which she did. But, she got frustrated while it came to her knowledge that the accused-petitioners got her land transferred to their names fraudulently taking advantage of her simplicity and also that she was threatened by the accused-petitioners, who were her relatives whom she allowed to stay with her, she being a lone lady having nobody to look after her.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that there is a civil suit pending in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of the complaint petition, filed by the respondent No. 2 for declaration of, right, title and interest, recovery of possession and cancellation of mutation, and therefore, continuance of a parallel proceeding in the aforesaid criminal complaint case is an abuse of the process of the Court and on this plea the complaint case is sought to be quashed.

The counsel for the respondent No. 2 has reacted to such submission made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and stated that the suit aforesaid is seeking reliefs, as indicated above, and not for the accusations in respect of fraud practised on the complainant as well as in respect of taking the amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- from her.

I have considered the rival contentions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, referring to para 12 of Amresh Tiwari vs. Lata Prasad Dubey and Anr., reported in (2000) 4 SCC 440, has submitted that a parallel criminal proceeding cannot continue while a civil suit is pending. But, the fact remains that the said decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in respect of criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.PC regarding possession of land involved in that case and the civil suit was also in respect of the same land.

Therefore, on facts, the instant case and the case referred to above are not same.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works etc Vs. State of Gujrat and others, reported in AIR 1987 SC 1073, has observed that a decision in a case is the authority for what it decides on the facts of that case and not what logically f