4. It is further alleged that though the respondent No. 2 initially refused to accept the request, but later on, since the petitioners convinced his friend Amir Uddin Barbhuiya to jointly purchase the vehicle in question, he therefore paid Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) only to the petitioners and subsequently deposit an amount of Rs. 4,85,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand) only in the Bank Account of the petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, a total amount of Rs. 7,85,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand) only was given to the petitioner No. 1, but the petitioners neither purchased the Truck nor returned the money. It is further alleged that thereafter, the petitioner No.1 disappeared.

5. Thereafter, the Magistrate Court forwarded the C.R case to the Officer-in-charge, jurisdictional Police Station with a direction to register a case. Accordingly, an FIR was registered being Katlicherra P.S. Case No. 123/2015 under Sections 420/406 of IPC.

6. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted Charge-sheet on 31.10.2016 against the petitioners under Sections 420/406 of IPC. Upon submission of Charge-sheet, the petitioners filed a petition vide Petition No. 259/2017 before the Magistrate Court on the date fixed for appearance, seeking discharge from the case.

7. The Magistrate Court by Order dated 25.10.2017 was pleased to reject the said petition and framed charges under Sections 420/406/34 of IPC against the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a Criminal Revision Petition being Criminal Revision No. 86/2017 before the Revisional Court. However, the said Criminal Revision Petition was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide Order dated 06.07.2018. Situated thus, the present Criminal Petition has been filed.

8. Mr. M. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations contained in the complaint is highly improbable and therefore, the complaint alongwith the orders of the Magistrate Court as well as the Revisional Court is liable to be quashed in terms of the Principle No. 5 enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, reported in 1992 Suppl. 1 SCC 335.

9. He further relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta and Anr. Vs. State (Govt. of Nct of Delhi) Department of Home and Anr., reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706.

10. He further submits that the allegations made out in the complaint is essentially of civil in nature and therefore, the order of the Magistrate Court framing charge under Sections 420/406/34 of IPC against the petitioners is totally erroneous and accordingly, the order of the Revisional Court up-holding the order of the Magistrate Court is palpably and manifestly erroneous.

11. Per contra, Ms. L. Yazida, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the allegations set out in the complaint petition and the materials collected by the prosecution are sufficient enough for framing the charges in question.

12. Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State respondent submits that that the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as regards the probative value of the allegations set out in the complaint, the same cannot be looked into by the Magistrate Court at the time of framing charge.

13. He accordingly submits that there is no infirmity committed by either the Revisional Court or the Magistrate Court, whereby the charges under Sections 420/406/34 of IPC was framed against the petitioners.

14. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the contending parties and have perused the materials available on record.

15. Apt at the outset to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the complaint, which reads as hereunder:-

7. Facts of the case:-That, the complainants, as well as the “

accused persons are in habitants of adjoining village and they are related to each other. On 14/01/2