Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 302 (CAL)

Pradip Kumar Biswas v. Subrata Das

2002-05-03

ARUNAVA BARUA

body2002
JUDGMENT This revisional application is directed against an order dated 28.12.99 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas, in Case No. C-130 of 1999 (T. R. No. 46 of 1999) whereby the petition of the accused-petitioner praying for discharge of the petitioner from the case under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected. 2. The genesis of this revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dates back to February 10, 1999 when one Subrata Das, the opposite party No. 1 in this application filed a complaint before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Sealdah against one Pradip Kumar Biswas, the revisional applicant. That was Case No. C-130 of 1999 under Section 420 I.P.C. in question. There the opposite party No.1, Subrata Das, being the complainant in the case brought out several allegations against the petitioner, Pradip Kumar Biswas. We may sum up the complaint as follows:- Subrata Das, the complainant (opposite party No.1 here) alleged that he is a graduate and had interest in Alternative System of Medicine and wanted to study that. Dr. Pradip Kumar Biswas, the petitioner-accused, was the President of Council of Alternative System of Medicines, Principal of Medical College of Alternative Medicines and Chancellor of Open University of Alternative Medicine having offices at 3, Cannal Street, P.S. Entally, Calcutta-700 014. Attractive advertisements in different newspapers were given by the petitioner-accused, Dr. Pradip Kumar Biswas, on behalf of his institution for admission into his institution and the petitioner accordingly took admission as a student of alternative medicine in the Medical College of Alternative Medicine at the said 3, Cannal Street, Calcutta on 12.7.97. At the time of admission the complainant paid requisite fees of Rs. 2,000/- as a part payment for this course and other incidental charges for prosecuting the study in Dr. Biswas's institution. At the time of admission in the said Medical College, the complainant (opposite party No.1) was given to understand by the petitioner-accused, Dr. Biswas, that his institution was the only institution of alternative medicines, that this institution was recognised by the Department of Health of Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal and also accepted by the Medical Council of India, Government of India, and was also approved by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. Biswas, that his institution was the only institution of alternative medicines, that this institution was recognised by the Department of Health of Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal and also accepted by the Medical Council of India, Government of India, and was also approved by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta. According to the complainant, such tall claims were laid out in the prospectus of the institution given to the complainant and these were made with a deliberate intention to mislead and dupe huge number of job seekers. The complainant wanted to have access to the relevant papers in connection with the above assertions held out by the petitioner accused but the petitioner accused avoided the same and failed to satisfy the complainant's demand. The complainant gave a letter to the Secretary, Medical College/Council of India and got a reply from the Deputy Secretary, Medical Council of India dated 8.8.97 whereby the complainant was informed that the qualification granted by the Council, Alternative System of Medicine, West Bengal, was not recognised by the Medical Council of India for the purpose of I.M.C. Act, 1956. Moreover, in the Telegraph dated 9.8.97 a list of recognised Medical Colleges in India was published on behalf of the Medical Council of India but therefrom the names of the institution of the petitioner-accused did not appear. The complainant further alleged that subsequently he moved a writ petition being No. 20305(w) of 1997 before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta which was disposed of on 11.5.98 and against the said order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court the petitioner-accused preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also disposed of on 14.12.98 and hence, there was delay in filing the case by the complainant. According to the complainant, the petitioner-accused having held out some false data duped him to get admission in his institution and thereby had cheated him and hence, the complaint. Having examined the complainant under Section 200 Cr. P.C. and having sati9fied with the preliminary ezahar, documents and finding a prima facie case under Section 420 I.P.C., learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah, to whom the case was transferred issued process against the petitioner-accused under Section 420 I.P.C. 3. On 8.7.99 accused, Pradip Kumar Biswas filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah, praying for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr. On 8.7.99 accused, Pradip Kumar Biswas filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah, praying for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. In that petition for his discharge in the case brought against him by Subrata Das under Section 420 I.P.C. he made out this case, in short. Pradip Kumar Biswas, the accused alleged that he was the President of the Council of Alternative System of Medicines. The said medicine alternative was established in 1962 at Alma Atta, U.S.S.R. The said Council had its registered Office at Jadavpur, Calcutta. He was also the Principal of Medical College of Alternative Medicines and Chancellor of Open University of Alternative Medicines having its Office at Cannal Street, Calcutta. His institution had the object to promote and advance the science of Alternative System of Medicines, such as, Electro-Homeopathy, Neuropathy, Indo-Allopathy, Magnate Theraphy etc. It was also to establish the faculty to control examination of teaching and educational •institution or college etc. and award, degree, diploma or certificates thereof. The accused also tried to make out his case that the System of Alternative Medicines was well recognised all over the world. It was also alleged that the said Council was to mitigate the sufferings of Humanity when Allopathic and Ayurvedic System and other recognised systems had failed to reach to the majority of the people in India. It was in a way rendering social service of the common people in healing the disease. It was also alleged that the said institution was registered by the Government of West Bengal under Central Government Act XIV based on Literal and Scientific Act, 1864 and affiliated with the Council of Alternative System of Medicines registered under the Societies Regulation Act. The accused also alleged that some competitors of his have lodged a false criminal case against him. He moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in 1988 praying for quashing of the said FIR in Matter No. 546 of 1988 and the said writ application was allowed and the Hon'ble Court (Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee, J.) was pleased to quash the FIR order dated 7.5.90 and the respondents were restrained from initiating and continuing any criminal prosecution on the basis of the said complaint lodged and they were further restrained from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the working of the said institution which was the Alternative System of Medicines. The accused in th8,t petition for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. had further alleged that the complaint case filed by the complainant, Subrata Das, was not maintainable as there was no witness list given, that no document had been mentioned in the petition. He has further alleged that the essential ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. were not made out in the petition of complaint and that the allegations in the petition of complaint were motivated, fanciful and false. He has further alleged that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Court in its writ jurisdiction quashing the FIR, the present complaint case was not at all maintainable in law and it is liable to be quashed since it was nothing but a vexatious and harassing proceeding. The accused has further alleged that the complainant, Subrata Das in collusion with one Dr. S. K. Agarwal who was a rival of the accused had lodged a complaint against the accused before the Monopolis and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in New Delhi on 10.7.97. Before the complainant took admission in the disputed institution and the complainant having failed to, succeed in the M.R.T.P. Commission had filed this false case. The accused had finally said that the charge against him was groundless and accordingly, the accused was entitled to be discharged under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah by his order dated 28.12.99 rejected on contest the petition under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. filed by the accused, Pradip Kumar Biswas and fi xed 21.1.2000 for evidence before charge. This is the order dated 28.12.99 which has precisely been assailed by the accused Pradip Kumar Biswas in the instant revisional application before this Court. It is, therefore, necessary to have a close look at the impugned order dated 28.12.99 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah. In the first place, I find that the learned Magistrate had taken pains to elaborately discuss the respective contentions of the parties and come to the conclusion in rejecting the petition of the accused Pradip Kumar Biswas under Section 245(2) Cr. P .C. The learned Magistrate has dwelt upon the proceedings taken out by the accused in the High Court and other evidence placed before the learned Magistrate. P .C. The learned Magistrate has dwelt upon the proceedings taken out by the accused in the High Court and other evidence placed before the learned Magistrate. The primary concern of the learned Magistrate was whether the accused was entitled to get the relief (discharge) as prayed for at that stage without the evidence being led by both the sides. The learned Magistrate found that the present complainant was not a party to the proceedings being No. 2419 (w) of 1988 and in the matter No. 546 of 1988. It was also found that the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No. 2419 (w) of 1988 has been pleased to quash the said writ application filed by one Dr. Chintaharan Saha against the Government of West Bengal and others including the present accused in the light of observation made by B.P. Banerjee, J. in the matter No. 546 of 1988. It was duly taken note of by the learned Magistrate that by judgment and order passed by Hon'ble Justice B.P. Banerjee in the said matter No. 546 of 1988, the Hon'ble Court by its order dated 7.5.90 was pleased to quash the FIR filed by the Government of West Bengal and others and made a restrain order as already mentioned hereinbefore. But, the learned Magistrate found that the present complainant being not a party to the above proceedings was not barred from initiating a criminal proceeding under Section 420 I.P.C. against the accused Pradip Kumar Biswas. The learned Magistrate was of the view that to initiate a criminal proceeding against a wrongdoer was a fundamental right of each and every Citizen of India. The learned Magistrate was unable to accept the contention of the defence that the complainant had no right to initiate any criminal proceeding against the accused in respect of his institution of Alternative Medicines. The learned Magistrate was unable to accept the contention of the defence that the complainant had no right to initiate any criminal proceeding against the accused in respect of his institution of Alternative Medicines. The learned Magistrate also found that on the face of the document the institute of the accused was neither recognised by Government of West Bengal's Health and Family Welfare Directorate nor was accepted by the Medical Council of India, also the letter dated 8.8.97 given by the Medical Council of India to the complainant further showed that the qualification given by the institution of Alternative Medicines situated at 3, Cannal Street, Calcutta, was not recognized by the M.C.I. Moreover, the learned Magistrate found that the very facts of lodging of the FIR against the accused by the State of West Bengal for giving false information in the paper advertisement as well as in the prospectus of his institution that his institution was approved and recognised by the Government also ipso facto proved that the accused by giving false information in the newspaper and the prospectus of the institution had created an impression in the mind of the public that his institution had valid authority from the Government of West Bengal, M.C.I. and Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta to impart education in alternative medicine. The learned Magistrate also took note of the documents placed before him to say that the newspaper cutting and copy of prospectus of the institution of the accused went to show that the accused had given advertisement in newspaper that his institution was recognized by the Director of Medicine, Education Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal and that it was accepted by the Indian Medical Council, Government of India. It was also found by the learned Magistrate that the accused Pradip Kumar Biswas had also gone to the length of mentioning in such advertisements as well as in the prospectus of his institution that the degree issued by his institution was approved by the Constitutional Bench, Calcutta High Court. It was also found by the learned Magistrate that the accused Pradip Kumar Biswas had also gone to the length of mentioning in such advertisements as well as in the prospectus of his institution that the degree issued by his institution was approved by the Constitutional Bench, Calcutta High Court. The learned Magistrate took notice of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice P .S. Mishra, and Bhaskar Bhattacharjee, J. in M.A.T. No. 462 of 1998 and it appeared therefrom that the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Court had been pleased to hold that the accused Pradip Kumar Biswas (revisional applicant) was guilty of criminal contempt of Court not only for creating an impression on the mind of the public that the Hon'ble Court had approved the institution of the accused as one of alternative medicine and having valid authority to impart education alternative medicine by giving advertisement in newspaper and claiming the above in the prospectus but also for affirming deliberate false statement in the affidavit to the effect that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice along with some other Hon'ble Judges of the Calcutta High Court attended the 5th International Conference of Alternative Medicine held at the Park Hotel, Calcutta on 1.12.97 and for filing a xerox copy of Ananda Bazar Patrika photograph of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, Calcutta High Court along with Justice S. K. Mookherjee standing next to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and for alleging Hon'ble Justice S. K. Mookherjee as D. K. Agarwal, President of Indian Board of Alternative Medicine who was facing charge of forgery for forging the seal and signature of the learned 5th Assistant District Judge, Alipore in the said affidavit and for introducing the same in the case record without the leave of the Court with an evil intention and Hon'ble Court had been pleased to impose a fine of Rs. 2000/- i. d. S. I. for 7 days against the accused person. The learned Magistrate also found from the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the special leave to Appeal No. 1662 of 1998 filed by the present accused's institution against the above decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 2000/- i. d. S. I. for 7 days against the accused person. The learned Magistrate also found from the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the special leave to Appeal No. 1662 of 1998 filed by the present accused's institution against the above decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The learned Magistrate found from the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court that it prima facie showed that the accused, Pradip Kumar Biswas was a Master in creating a false impression in the mind of the people in respect of his institution that it was recognized by Government of West Bengal, Director of Medical Education and Indian Medical Council, Government of India though as a matter of fact, it was not at all recognized either by the Government of West Bengal or by I.M.C. and the public was deceived to take admission in his institution. That apart, the learned Magistrate apparently found no documents from the side of the accused to show that his institution was affiliated with International Multi-national University in Alternative Medicine, Alma Atta-U.S.S.R. with regard to the complaint before the MRTP Commission by the complainant and the allegation that complainant having failed to obtain relief before the MRTP Commission had got himself admitted in the institution of the accused and had filed the case thereafter, the learned Magistrate thought that such a contention by the defence could not be taken into consideration at that stage by the learned Magistrate and that such matter had to be decided at the time of trial and it was further opined by the learned Magistrate that the intention and mens rea of the party to institute a case had to be decided at the time of trial and could not be decided at that stage without taking into consideration the evidence at the time of trial. The learned Magistrate had held that prima facie, it appeared that the accused had deceived the general public at large by giving false attractive advertisement in the newspaper and prospectus of his institution to the effect that his institution was recognized by Department of Medical Education and Directorate of Health and family welfare and the degrees of the institution was accepted by the Indian Medical Council, Government of India and also that it was approved by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta in Matter No. 546 of 1988, though in reality these were all false. The learned Magistrate further held that, prima facie, it also appeared that the complainant by being attracted by such false advertisements in different newspapers and also the prospectus of his institution had taken admission in the institution of the accused on 12.7.97. The learned Magistrate finally found that a prima facie case was made out against the accused under Section 420 I.P.C. and the learned Magistrate was not inclined to discharge the accused from the allegations. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate by his impugned order dated 28.12.99 had rejected the application of the accused, Pradip Kumar Biswas under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. 5. In the instant revisional application the petitioner-accused, Pradip Kumar Biswas in assailing the aforesaid impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 28.12.99 has set up a case not quite materially different from what he has set up in his petition for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. Only some proceedings before the High Court and the Supreme Court by both the parties have been elaborated. We may set out respective arguments submitted by both parties which may be material to show what they are really driving at in support of their respective contentions. 6. We may straightway try to summarise first the arguments placed on behalf of the accused, Pradip Kumar Biswas, the petitioner-accused. 7. The petitioner-accused after appearing in the case being No. C-130 of 1999 (T.R. No. 46 of 1999) under Section 420 I.P.C. pursuant to the process under Section 420 I.P.C. against him got bail from the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore and then filed an application under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. praying for discharge from the case before the learned Judicial Magistrate. I have already discussed this. The petitioner-accused has argued that complainant, Subrata Das, filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Ch. P.C. praying for discharge from the case before the learned Judicial Magistrate. I have already discussed this. The petitioner-accused has argued that complainant, Subrata Das, filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before Hon'ble Justice Pinaki Ch. Ghosh praying for a direction upon the State Government and the Police Authorities to take steps in accordance with law on the basis of his complaint before the State Government and the Police Authorities. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 4.2.98 and against that complainant, Subrata Das preferred an appeal being M.A.T. No. 462 of 1998 and the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal by giving liberty to the complainant to take steps in accordance with law, if the complainant thought that he was hoodwinked by the accused-petitioner. Against the order of contempt passed by the Division Bench in M.A.T. No. 462 of 1998, two criminal appeals had been filed by the accused-petitioner of Pradip Kumar Biswas and the said criminal appeals after admission and after grant of stay of further proceedings are still pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court for adjudication. It has been further argued by the petitioner-accused that the instant complaint is premature and harassing and there is no ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C. in the said complaint. It is further argued that Hon'ble Justice B.P. Banerjee in the writ petition had already specifically held that the degrees, diplomas and certificates conferred by the petitioner's Council could not be said to be illegal and invalid and further that the activities of the petitioner's Council were not illegal and that the State Government was totally ignorant about the Alternative System of Medicines. The said judgment of B. P. Banerjee, J. was followed by Haridas Das, J. in another writ petition being C. R. No. 2419 of 1988. It is further alleged that subsequently the complainant, Subrata Das also filed another writ application being W. P. No. 6242 (w) 1999 alleging that the petitioner's Council was not recognized by the State Government and on hearing the writ application, Pinaki Ch. Ghosh, J. was pleased to direct the State respondents to hear the respective parties about the complaint and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Ghosh, J. was pleased to direct the State respondents to hear the respective parties about the complaint and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The petitioner-accused contends that in view of this the instant complaint before the learned Magistrate is premature and does not lie since the point of recognition is pending for decision by the State Government. It has been further argued that the learned Magistrate, while disposing of the application under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. had failed to consider the above aspects and substantial points of law and facts and also ignored the two criminal appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and rejected the instant application of the accused-petitioner under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. praying for discharge from harassing and vexatious complaint by the impugned order dated 28.12.99 It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioner-accused that the learned Magistrate ought to have been held that the process issued in the above complaint should be quashed since the accused-petitioner in the paper advertisement always specifically mentioned that the legality and validity of the Council were approved by the Hon'ble High Court in the said Matter No. 546 of 1988, recognized by the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, vide Matter No. 3506 of 1991 and accepted by the Indian Medical Council being C. R. No. 2419(w) of 1988 and the petitioner-accused never claimed that the Hon'ble High Court approved the petitioner's institution and the Department of Health and Family Welfare recognised the petitioner's institution and since the State Government and Indian Medical Council did not prefer any appeal against the judgment and order passed in Matter No. 546 of 1988, Matter No. 3506 of 1991 and C. R. No. 2419(w) of 1988. The petitioner made the above paper advertisement on the bona fide impression that the State Government recognized the activities of the Council since the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal gave an undertaking before the Hon'ble High Court that the State Government would comply the judgment and order passed in Matter No. 546 of 1988 and the Indian Medical Council accepted the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court. It has been further argued on behalf of the petitioner-accused that from the paper advertisement of the petitioner's institution, it will appear that there is no mens rea or bad intention on the part of the accused-petitioner to deceive people in general but the learned Magistrate failed to consider this aspect altogether and, therefore, the petitioner stands seriously harassed and prejudiced and the learned Magistrate ought to have discharged the accused petitioner in allowing his petition under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. It has been further argued by the petitioner-accused that the complainant took admission in the institute of the petitioner on 15.7.97 by praying half fees amounting to Rs. 2000/- on the basis of paper advertisement by the Medical College of Alternative Medicine and the said paper advertisement which the complainant alleged and mentioned in the petition of complaint was published long before the restrain order passed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.5.98 in M.A.T. No. 462 of 1998 and as such the allegations against the petitioner-accused mentioned in the petition of complaint are not tenable in law and facts and the learned Magistrate had failed to consider this aspect of the matter and the entire order of the learned Magistrate is vitiated as it has caused serious prejudice and miscarriage of Justice. The petitioner has contended, therefore, that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 28.12.99 is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 8. The case was also argued at length by the learned Advocate for the complainant opposite party No.1, Subrata Das. We may sum up the argument on behalf of the opposite party No.1, Subrata Das as follows:- Reference to the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court as also the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party No.1 in the learned Court below under Section 420 I.P.C. has been made. The ordering portion of the said judgment and order dated 11.5.98 passed by the Division Bench in MAT. No. 462 of 1998 was quoted in this connection as follows- "However, as we have heard the learned Advocates for the parties on merit, instead of remanding the matter, we propose to dispose of the same by restraining the respondent Nos. The ordering portion of the said judgment and order dated 11.5.98 passed by the Division Bench in MAT. No. 462 of 1998 was quoted in this connection as follows- "However, as we have heard the learned Advocates for the parties on merit, instead of remanding the matter, we propose to dispose of the same by restraining the respondent Nos. 10 to 13 from using the name of this Court or giving reference to any case decided by this Court either in the prospectus or in any advertisement so that no impression is created in the mind of the public that this Court has' approved the said institution or recognized those as having authority to impart knowledge about the system of Alternative Medicine. We further make it clear that the Appellate Court is at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the respondent Nos. 10 to 13 if he thinks that he has been hoodwinked by the misstatement of those respondents. If such legal action is initiated, the same will be disposed of in accordance with law". 9. It was contended that Pradip Kumar Biswas that is the petitioner accused, was the respondent No. 13 in the said writ application as also in the appeal being F.M.A No. 838 of 1998. It was argued that pursuant to the said liberty given by the Division Bench of this Court, the complainant opposite party No.1 filed the petition of complaint disclosing cognizable offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and made out a case thereunder and the learned Magistrate having satisfied that a prima facie case under Section 420 I.P.C. had been made out was pleased to issue process and on the face of it the complaint was quite maintainable and further investigation of the case in relation to the commission of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. could be decided at the time of trial on taking evidence. It has been further argued on behalf of the opposite party No.1 that the Matter No. 546 of 1988 (B. P. Banerjee, J.) and the contempt petition being Matter No. 3506 of 1991 arising out of the same are altogether on different footing and that in no way relieves the accused petitioner from the allegations of the offence against him under Section 420 I.P.C. It has been further argued that in the said Matter No. 546 of 1988, the judgment passed therein in the writ petition and the contempt proceeding do not entitle the accused-petitioner to give misleading and false advertisement and that as such by the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court the respondent Nos. 10 to 13 (including the accused-petitioner) were restrained from using the name of this Hon'ble Court or give reference to any case either in the prospectus or in any advertisement so that no impression is created in the mind of the public that the High Court had approved the said institution or recognized those as having authority to impart knowledge about the system of Alternative Medicine. It has been further argued that two criminal appeals are infer alia against the order of the Hon'ble High Court in contempt application and it is relevant to mention that the accused-petitioner, who was the respondent No. 13 in the abovementioned appeal being F.M.A. No. 838 of 1998 (MAT. No. 462 of 1998) preferred SLP (Civil) being SLP (Civil) No. 16628 of 1998 which has dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by holding inter alia -"We do not see any reason to entertain the petition. Hence, it is dismissed." Accordingly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench was upheld and as such the argument of the accused-petitioner contrary to the same is misleading and irrelevant in the context of the adjudication of the instant criminal revisional application. It has been further argued on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 that there are some principles for quashing proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. It has been further argued on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 that there are some principles for quashing proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. The High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. shall have to be satisfied that the proceeding in the learned Court below amounts to an abuse of the process of Court or that it amounts to prosecution whether there is no reasonable possibility of the prosecution succeeding or that the allegations set out in the petition of complaint do not constitute in offence. It is further submitted that exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be in the rarest of rare cases. It is argued that in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case there is no ingredient of abuse of the process of Court which warrants quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It has been finally argued by the learned Advocate for the complainant-opposite party No. 1 that the learned Magistrate was fully justified in rejecting the petition under Section 245(2) Cr. P.C. in question and there is no scope of any interference that the said impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 28.12.99 and the instant revisional application has no merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. The petitioner-saccused, Pradip Kumar B vas, has come up in this revisional application to set aside the impugned order of the learned Magistrate 2nd Court, Sealdah dated 28.12.99 whereby the learned Magistrate had dismissed his petition praying for discharging him from the case since according to him the allegations made against him in the petition of complaint are totally baseless. I have discussed the petition of complaint filed by the o. P. No.1, Subrata Das before the learned Magistrate. A case of cheating was made out in the petition of complaint and it was supported by the initial testimony of the complainant O. P. No.1 on oath before the learned Magistrate. I have also discussed the reasons why the petitioner-accused made the application under Section 245(2) Cr. P. C. before the learned Magistrate thereby praying for discharging. I have also discussed the impugned order dated 28.12.99 passed by" the learned Judicial Magistrate. I find the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in her elaborate order in question dated 28.12.99 were clearly convincing. P. C. before the learned Magistrate thereby praying for discharging. I have also discussed the impugned order dated 28.12.99 passed by" the learned Judicial Magistrate. I find the reasons given by the learned Magistrate in her elaborate order in question dated 28.12.99 were clearly convincing. The learned Magistrate took into account the relevant facts and circumstances and also the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court that had touched upon the controversy laid bare in the course of hearing of the petition under Section 245(2) Cr. P. C. I have carefully considered the arguments placed by both the parties and I am afraid, I am not persuaded to be convinced about the points raised on behalf of the petitioner-accused but am inclined to rely on the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the complainant O. P. No.1. Having had a close look at the petition of complaint under Section 420 I. P. C. against the petitioner-accused by the O. P. No.1, Subrata Das, I am quite satisfied, as was the learned Magistrate, that basic ingredients of the offence under Section 420 I. P. C. was prima facie made out; or, in other words, the basic foundation of the offence under Section 420 I. P. C. finds its firm roots in the petition of complaint and that is good enough to find the basics of a prima facie case under Section 420 I. P. C. The documents including the ones that relate to the different proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court which have been pointed out and discussed above also do make out a prima facie case to be proceeded with under Section 420 I. P. C. against the petitioner-accused. It would be pertinent to mention what the Division Bench comprising P. S. Mishra, the Chief Justice and Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. had observed in the contempt matter in F. M. A. No. 838 of 1998. It goes thus................We have no hesitation in our mind to conclude that respondent Nos. 10 to 13 by their ingenious acts as mentioned above have utilised the name of this Court for promoting their business which cannot but be turned as criminal 'contempt' ....... At any rate, we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent No. 13 as regards his false statement made in Paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit affirmed on April 27, 1998. At any rate, we are not satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent No. 13 as regards his false statement made in Paragraph-4 of the supplementary affidavit affirmed on April 27, 1998. We are further convinced that the said affidavit containing deliberate, false and uncalled for statements were introduced in the case record without taking our leave with a sinister motive. .......Thus, we held the respondent No. 13 guilty of criminal contempt of Court not only for creating an impression in the mind of the public that this Court has approved the respondent Nos. 10 to 12 as having valid authority to impart education in alternative medicine by giving advertisement in newspapers and claiming as above in the prospectus but also for affirming deliberate, false statement in the affidavit and introducing the same in the case record without the leave of the Court with an evil intention....................In the facts and circumstances of the case, we impose a fine of Rs. 2000/- upon the respondent No. 13 to be paid within a week, failing which he will undergo a simple imprisonment for 7 days." These facts and findings of the Division Bench are prima facie clear enough indication about the conduct and motive of the petitioner-accused in running his institution of Alternative Medicine and this unmistakably buttresses the reasonableness about the allegations of the complainant O. P. No. 1 and the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate about the existence of a prima facie case under Section 420 I. P. C. against the petitioner-accused. 11. The petitioner-accused has sought to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 420 I. P. C. It is well-settled that Section 482 Cr. P. C. comes into play in rare or exceptional cases when there is an abuse of the process of Court. From the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above I have no hesitation to say that there is absolutely no likelihood of any abuse of the process of Court if the case in question before the learned Magistrate is allowed to be proceeded with. In this connection I might profitably a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) S. N. Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3133. That was a decision in the context of inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr. In this connection I might profitably a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (1) S. N. Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3133. That was a decision in the context of inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. The Supreme Court had held thus:- "FIR ought not to be thwarted at the initial stages if an offence is disclosed but in the event however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. Criminal proceedings, in the normal course of events ought not be scuttled at the initial stage, unless the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law. In the normal course of events thus, quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than ordinary rule. The genuineness of the averments in the FIR cannot possible be gone into and the document shall have to be read as a whole to decipher the intent of the maker thereof. It is not a document which requires decision with exactitude, neither it is a document which requires decision with exactitude, neither it is a document which requires mathematical accuracy and nicety, but the same should be able to communicate or indicative of disclosure of an offence broadly and in the event the said test stands satisfied, the question relating to the quashing of a complaint would not arise. ......................While liberty of an individual are "sacred and sacrosanct" and it is a bounden obligation of the Court to protect them but in the event of commission of a cognizable offence and an offence stand disclosed in the FIR, interest of justice requires further investigation by the Investigating Agency. ...........................In the event of disclosure of an offence, it is a duty incumbent to investigate into offence and bring the offenders to books in order to serve the cause of justice." 12. By way of an analogy, another decision of the Supreme Court in (2) Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 1216 , may be referred to. There, the Supreme Court had held in para 9 of the decision as follows:- "9. It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. There, the Supreme Court had held in para 9 of the decision as follows:- "9. It is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. Nor is it necessary that the complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up of the definition into different components of the offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during investigation stage merely on the premises that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. For quashing an FIR (a step which is permitted only in extremely rare cases) the information in the complaint must be so bereft of even the basis facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. In (3) State of Haryana If Bhajan Lal, 1999 AIR SCW 237 (supra), this Court laid down the premise on which the FIR can be quashed in rare cases. The following observations made in the aforesaid decisions are a sound reminder (para 109 of AIR) : "We also give a note of caution of the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 13. In view of the above, I find that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate dated 28. 12. 99 is well-reasoned and fully justified and there is no reason whatsoever why this order passed by the learned Magistrate should be set aside. 14. This revisional application is barren of merits and hence, is dismissed. The impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah, dated 28. 12. 99 is hereby affirmed. 12. 99 is well-reasoned and fully justified and there is no reason whatsoever why this order passed by the learned Magistrate should be set aside. 14. This revisional application is barren of merits and hence, is dismissed. The impugned order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Sealdah, dated 28. 12. 99 is hereby affirmed. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the case and dispose the same in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties.