JUDGMENT: KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J: 1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings of Purulia (Town) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2009 dated 21.8.2009 under Sections 420/406/468/469/323/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bearing G.R. Case No. 701 of 2009 now pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia. 2. The case of the petitioners, in short, is that the respondent No. 2 has filed a petition of complaint in the Court of learned C.J.M., Purulia alleging, inter alia, that the complainant is a retired Government employee and a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. On 12.12.2008 the petitioner who is a member of the higher community, sold a plot of land to the complainant measuring 73.5 decimals in RS plot Nos. 161, 162 & 259 comprised in RS Khatian Nos. 1157and 1186 situated at Mouza Purulia, JL No. 292/2 by executing a registered deed of sale bearing No. 5591 in the year 2009 at a consideration of Rs.24,98,180/-. Payment was made by cheques/ bank drafts. It has been alleged that at the time of sale the petitioner explicitly stated that the land appertaining to RS plot No. 161 measuring 66 decimals and RS plot No. 162 measuring 03 decimals was mutated in his name vide mutation Case No. 350/2004 at the office of the BL & LRO, Purulia – I. It was also stated that the land was free from all encumbrances. After the sale deed was registered, the complainant submitted an application on 02.01.2009 before the BL & LRO for getting his name mutated in place of the petitioner. During the hearing of the Mutation Case bearing No. 7 of 2009 in the office of the BL & LRO, Purulia – I it could be learnt from the records that only 28.5 decimals of land out of 66 decimals in RS plot No. 161 comprised in RS Khatian No. 1157 was recorded in the name of the petitioner and, as such, the seller was the owner of 28.5 decimals of land in respect of the said plot, although, at the time of sale he represented that he was the owner of 66 decimals of land. It has been alleged that in connivance with the staff of the B.L. & L.R.O., Purulia – I the accused obtained rent receipt for 66 decimals of land in his name with the intent to cheat the complainant. It has further been alleged that the complainant thereafter visited the house cum office of the petitioner on 30.6.2009 and requested the petitioner herein to refund the excess amount of money taken by him towards the illegal sale of 37.5 decimals of land. It has been alleged that the petitioner herein became very much agitated, aggressive and shouted at the top of the voice and abused him in derogatory manner touching his caste and threatened him with dire consequences. It is also alleged that the petitioner assaulted the complainant with fist and blows. The complainant filed a complaint before the learned C.J.M., Purulia which was sent to the P.S. under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the letter written by the complainant to the S.P. there is no allegation that the petitioner herein made derogatory remarks touching the caste of the complainant. It is contended that the petitioner herein delivered his title deed to the complainant at the time of sale. It is submitted that there is no averment in the complaint that from the very beginning there was an intention on the part of this petitioner to cheat the complainant. The learned Counsel contends that there is no manner of application of Section 406 of the I.P.C. in the circumstances of the case as there was no entrustment and there was no misappropriation. It is contended that as per allegation contained in the complaint, the interpolation or subsequent insertion was made prior to the registration of the deed and that the complaint was lodged after the lapse of about eight months from the date of sale. It is contended that the provision of Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not applicable, inasmuch as, as per the allegation, the complainant went to the office of the petitioner and in the absence of any member of the public it cannot be said that the complainant was humiliated in the view of the public. The learned Counsel has referred to and cited the decisions reported in JT 2008(9) SC 543[Gorige Pentaiah Vs. The learned Counsel has referred to and cited the decisions reported in JT 2008(9) SC 543[Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Others]; JT 2008 (9) SC 60 [Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Anr.]; 2009(2) C.Cr.L.R. Cal 73 [Rajat Kumar Bandyopadhyay Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.]; the judgment of unreported decision in CRR 2137 of 2009 [Radha Biswas & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal] of this Court, 2006(4) CHN 719 [Amar Nath Bhattacharya Vs. Prasenjit Kumar Bose & Anr.]; (2008)2 C.Cr.L.R. Cal 138 [Shri Ram Nath Poddar & Ors. Vs. State of West Benga;l & Ors.] and 2002 SCC Cri 129 [S. W. Palanitkar and others Vs. State of Bihar and another]. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the State submits that at the primary stage of investigation this Court has no power to interfere with the investigation or quash the proceedings. In this connection the learned Counsel has referred to the decisions reported in 1992(4) SCC 15 [M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. chaitanyakumar and another] and 1994(2) SCC 277 [Union of India & Others Vs. B. R. Bajaj and Others]. It is submitted that the specific allegation raised by the complainant should be considered at the time of trial. It is contended that the petitioner herein had saleable interest in respect of 28.5 decimals of land, but, inspite of that he sold the entire 66 decimals of land to the complainant and this is enough to show that the offence of cheating was committed. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2, that is, the complainant before the learned Court below submits that the petitioner herein, although, was the owner of 28.5 decimals of land out of 66 decimals, he sold the entire 66 decimals of land to the complainant and the intention to cheat is very much clear. It is contended that no interference can be made at the stage of investigation and there is no ground to quash the F.I.R. at this stage. The learned Counsel has referred to and cited the decisions reported in AIR 1999 SC 3499 [Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others]; AIR 2000 SC 1869 [M/S. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Biological E. Ltd. and others]; AIR 2001 SC 3014 [M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and another]; AIR 2001 SC 3253 [S. M. Dutta Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others]; AIR 2000 SC 1869 [M/S. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Biological E. Ltd. and others]; AIR 2001 SC 3014 [M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and another]; AIR 2001 SC 3253 [S. M. Dutta Vs. State of Gujarat and another]; AIR 2001 SC 3846 [Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and others]; AIR 2006 SC 2780 [M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/S. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.]; AIR 2009 SC 1011 [M/S. Sri Krishna Agencies Vs. State of A.P. & Anr.]. 6. So far as the allegation under Section 420 and other Sections of I.P.C. is concerned, it is the contention of the learned Counsel of the O.Ps that the petitioner herein was found to be owner of 28.5 decimals of land, but, he executed and registered the deed in favour of the O.P. No. 2 in respect of the entire 66 decimals of land. It is also contended that before registration of the deed an insertion was made in the relevant page of the deed of sale that the O.P. No. 2 herein purchased the property being satisfied about the title of the seller. It has been stated in para 8 of the petition of complaint that after the purchase by O.P. No. 2 he filed a petition before the BL & LRO for mutation and in course of hearing of that case it was learnt that only 28.5 decimals of land out of 66 decimals of land in plot No. 161 was recorded in the name of the accused and, therefore, he was the owner of 28.5 decimals of land. In para 9 of the complaint it has been alleged that although 28.5 decimals of land in RS plot No. 161 was recorded in the name of the accused, in connivance with the staff of BL & LRO the accused obtained rent receipt for 66 decimals of land in his name in a fraudulent way with the intent to cheat the complainant. On this point the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein submits that the petitioner delivered his title deed and rent receipt to the O.P. No. 2 herein. 7. On this point the learned Counsel for the petitioner herein submits that the petitioner delivered his title deed and rent receipt to the O.P. No. 2 herein. 7. It appears that the basis of the allegation of the complainant i.e. O.P. No. 2 herein is that in the records of BL & LRO petitioner’s name in respect of 28.5 decimals was recorded and on the basis of that it has been alleged that the petitioner herein has cheated him. On the basis of such allegation the complainant is contending that his vendor was the owner to the extent of 28.5 decimals of land. It is not the case of the O.P. herein that the petitioner did not deliver his title deed to him at the time of sale. That apart the principle of caveat emptor should also be borne in mind. In this connection the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision in the case of Amar Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. Prasenjit Kumar Bose and another reported in 2006(4)CHN 719 (Supra) wherein it was held in para 8 as follows:- “…………… There is no obligation on the seller to disclose any defect unless it is a defect which the buyer could not with ordinary care discover. The doctrine is known as caveat emptor i.e. ‘Let the buyer beware’ …………….” 8. As regards the alleged subsequent insertion in the recital of the deed to the effect that the O.P. No. 2 purchased the property being satisfied with the papers relating to the title of the petitioner herein, it has been stated in para 5 of the complaint that before presentation of the deed for registration the said portion was typed. In para 6 of the complaint it has been stated that the accused sworn in an affidavit in which he affirmed the sale and declared that he sold the land to the complainant on 12.12.2008 and that the land was free from all encumbrances; that the land was not vested under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and that the land was mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No. 350 of 2004. The swearing of such affidavit, prima facie, shows that O.P. No. 2 herein did not conceal anything and also made a declaration that the land was free from all encumbrances. 9. As to the decision in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. The swearing of such affidavit, prima facie, shows that O.P. No. 2 herein did not conceal anything and also made a declaration that the land was free from all encumbrances. 9. As to the decision in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and other (Supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 herein it has been held that quashing of F.I.R. or a complaint in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court should be limited to very extreme exceptions and provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the dispute to arbitration was not an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act was an offence of fraudulent misrepresentation and cheating. 10. In the case of M/S. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S. Biological E. Ltd. and others (Supra) it has been held that complaint cannot be quashed merely on the ground that civil remedy was available and that allegations levelled in complaint, on the face of it, disclosed offence alleged. 11. In the case of M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and another (Supra) there were allegations of forgery of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents and it was held that the proceeding could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the concerned documents. It was further held that in a criminal Court the allegations made in complaint have to be established independently notwithstanding the adjudication by a civil Court. 12. In the case of S. M. Dutta Vs. State of Gujarat and another (Supra) it has been held that FIR should not be thwarted at the initial stage unless materials do not disclose any offence. 13. In the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and others (Supra) it has been held that for pendency of civil action in different Court even though higher in status and authority, the proceedings in the Criminal Court cannot be quashed. 14. In the case of M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/S. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) it was held that the quashing of the criminal proceeding was not justified as the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to constitute offences alleged under Section 415 and 425 of the I.P.C. 15. 14. In the case of M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/S. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) it was held that the quashing of the criminal proceeding was not justified as the allegations in the complaint were sufficient to constitute offences alleged under Section 415 and 425 of the I.P.C. 15. In the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as reported in 2006(4) CHN 719 (Supra) it has been held that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, fraudulent or dishonest intention must have to be shown right at the beginning of the transaction. 16. In this respect it is clear that there is no specific averment in the complaint that from the beginning of the transaction there was intention on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant. The test to be applied is whether or not the facts complained of constitute an offence. Here it is found that the complainant is aggrieved by the fact that in the records of BL & LRO 28.5 decimals of land were recorded in the name of the petitioner, although, the rent receipt was allegedly issued in respect of 66 decimals of land. The complainant contends that because of such recording of 28.5 decimals of land in the records of BL & LRO, the seller cheated him. This is the basis of his complaint. In this connection the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent receipt cannot be said to be a document of title and whether the seller had saleable interest in 66 decimals of land or not it is to be tried by a Civil Court. On perusal of the petitioner’s complaint and the papers on record I find that the facts complained of in this regard do not constitute any offence and it will be abuse of the process of Court if such criminal proceeding is allowed to continue. 17. As regards the alleged offence under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 it has been alleged in para 11 of the petition of complaint that the complainant went to the house cum office room of the accused on 30.6.2009 and tried to convince him about the illegal selling of other’s land measuring 37.5 decimals and requested him to refund the money taken by him. It has been alleged that the accused became very much agitated, aggressive, furious and shouted at the top of the voice using slang languages and made derogatory remarks even in the name of the caste of the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences and drove him away from his house after assaulting him by fist and blows. Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides that whoever not being a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punishable for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. 18. On this point the learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the decision reported in JT 2008(9) SC 543 (Supra) wherein it was held in para 8 that when there was no allegation in the complaint that he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view then permitting such a complaint to continue will be the abuse of the process of law. In another case reported in JT 2008(9) SC 60 (Supra) it has been held in para 34 as follows:- “34. However, a perusal of the FIR shows that Swarn Singh did not use these offensive words in the public view. There is nothing in the FIR show that any member of the public was present when Swarn Singh uttered these words, or that the place where he uttered them was a place which ordinarily could be seen by the public. Hence in our opinion no prima facie offence is made out against appellant No.1.” 19. In the petition of complaint nowhere it has been stated that the accused not being a member of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes intentionally insulted and humiliated him in a place within public view. On the contrary, it has been alleged in para 11 of the complaint that he went to the complainant’s house cum office of the accused wherein he allegedly made such comments. Nowhere it has been stated that any member of public was present there or viewed such an incident. On the contrary, it has been alleged in para 11 of the complaint that he went to the complainant’s house cum office of the accused wherein he allegedly made such comments. Nowhere it has been stated that any member of public was present there or viewed such an incident. Moreover, in the letter written to the Superintendent of Police of Purulia on 14.7.2009 for taking legal action against the accused person there was no allegation under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, although, the said incident allegedly took place on 30.6.2009 as stated in para 11 of the complaint. 20. Such being the position, I find that the facts complained of in this regard do not constitute any offence. In such view of the matter, I find that if the criminal proceeding is allowed to continue it will be the abuse of the process of the Court. The revisional application, is, therefore, allowed. The criminal proceedings in GR Case No. 701 of 2009 arising out of Purulia (Town) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2009 dated 21.8.2009 stand quashed. The accused/petitioner is discharged. 21. The CRAN 540 of 2010 which was filed for extension of interim order, being infructuous, stands disposed of. 22. Criminal Section is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the learned Court below immediately. 23. Urgent Photostat certified copy, if applied for, be handed over to the parties as early as possible.