JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. By this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenged the order dated 11.07.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Court No. 5), West Tripura, Agartala in Criminal Revision No. 10(2)/2012 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld order dated 21.1.2012 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. PRC 971/2010. Heard learned counsel, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik for the petitioner and learned P.P., Mr. D. Sarkar for the respondent. 2. Facts in short, necessary for disposal of this application may be noted thus:- 2.1. The present petitioner proposed to sell 2 gandas, 1 kara 11 dhurs of land (0.0456 acres) to one Chandan Dutta (informant of the criminal case) for a consideration of Rs. 12,00,000/- (twelve lakh). The land situated at Office Lane, Agartala, classified as homestead land, recorded in Khatian No, 1816 Hal Khatian No. 2678/56. The petitioner sold out the land saying it to be his jote land. After purchase when the purchaser Chandan Dutta applied for mutation, on field verification, the Revenue Authority found that in the eastern side there is a path way measuring 8' (eight feet) and the petitioner had shown the path way as 7' (seven feet) and thereby in the sale deed he had shown 1' (one feet) of pathway land as his jote land and in the northern side he had shown khas land measuring 0.0018 acres and it was shown in the sale deed as jote land. The Revenue authority found only 0.0369 acres as the jote land of the petitioner with saleable interest and the mutation was allowed to that extent of land. The purchaser Chandan Dutta therefore filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Chief Judicial Magistrate forwarded the same to the O.C., West Agartala P.S. under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C. to register it as FIR and to investigate into the complaint. 2.2. Accordingly, West Agartala P.S. Case No. 368 of 2010 under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up. P.C. to register it as FIR and to investigate into the complaint. 2.2. Accordingly, West Agartala P.S. Case No. 368 of 2010 under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered and an investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, I.O. examined the material witnesses, prepared hand sketch map of the disputed land, seized the material documents prepared by the Revenue authority at the time of mutation proceeding, i.e. the sketch map prepared by them showing the khas; land and pathway land which was sold by the petitioner saying to be his jote land and also seized the copy of the sale deed etc. and thereafter filed charge sheet against the accused-petitioner for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2.3. Charge sheet was received by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 07.07.2011 and considering the charge sheet (police report) learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 02.08.2011, took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and thereafter case was transferred to the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, who, in the process issued summons upon the accused-petitioner for appearance. On receipt of the summons, the accused-petitioner appeared and submitted a petition praying for discharging him on the ground that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and that the criminal case is not maintainable and he is liable to be discharged. Learned Magistrate rejected the prayer by impugned order dated 21.01.2012 passed in PRC Case No. 971 of 2010 holding that the petitioner sold out 2 gandas, 1 kara 11 dhurs of land saying to be his jote land and taken consideration money from the defacto complainant whereas he had only 1 ganda 2 karas of jote land and the rest of the land was khas land and pathway land and the petitioner thereby cheated the defacto complainant, the purchaser and therefore, the case should be tried on its own merit. 2.4. Challenging the order dated 21.1.2012, the petitioner preferred revisional application before the court of Sessions and learned Additional Sessions Judge by impugned order dated 11.07.2012, rejected the revisional application holding thus:- Now, going into the evidence and materials collected by investigating officer in above said case it reveals that the prima facie materials on record is that the Defecto Complainant/informant paid entire amount of consideration money of the petitioner i.e. Rs. 12,00,000/- for purchasing land area of 2 gandas, 1 kara and 11 dhurs but the proposed land of sale as demonstrated by the petitioner contained some portion of khas land and a portion of pathway of neighboring inmates, and possession of the same was handed over to him for which the informant was refused with the mutation of entire purchased land. Further allegation was that the petitioner induced him dishonestly showing that khas land and thus made him to deliver the entire amount of Rs. 12 lakhs to him. The another factum i.e. the requisite mesne rea of the petitioner for cheating since inception is to be judged after recording of evidence and absence of the same cannot be readily inferred at this very blooming stage of trial. Though there are also some favourable factors in the record leaning in petitioner's side e.g. he executed the deed as per agreement and handed over possession and that Property Laws also cast a duty upon the purchaser for necessary verification of land and its' documents before purchase for his satisfaction, but it is not the right time to consider all these matters which can only be judged at the time of final decision. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. 4. Power under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. should be exercised exdebito justitae (in accordance with the requirement of justice) to prevent abuse of the process of court but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. The Supreme Court in the case of State vs. Saroj Kumar, reported in (2005)13 SCC 540 has held exercise of power under Section 482 is an exception and not the rule. The section does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only serves the inherent power which the court possessed from before the enactment of the Code. By judicial pronouncement it has now been settled that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. By judicial pronouncement it has now been settled that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whims or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. In a case where based on a complaint police has investigated the case and submitted a charge sheet alleging commission of certain offences, and cognizance has been taken by the court of Magistrate considering that charge sheet, holding thereby that the police report consists prima facie material, the High Court is not required to interfere in the criminal proceeding unless, it is clearly brought out that there was no material at all to proceed with the trial of a criminal case based on such police report. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has submitted that the dispute is purely of civil nature. If the petitioner sold out khas land or pathway land saying it to be his jote land, he is liable to be dealt with under Civil Law and such act do not constitute a criminal offence since it was the duty of the purchaser also to get satisfied about the status of land while said transaction was going on. The alleged complainant at the time of transaction did not raise any objection but when mutation was refused for the entire land as purchased by him, he filed the criminal complaint. Learned counsel further submitted that the defecto complainant also instituted a civil case against the complainant and the copy of the plaint has been submitted before the trial court but that was not taken into consideration saying that it was on different issue. 6. Learned P.P., on the other hand, has submitted that the copy of the sale deed which is placed on record shows that the petitioner sold out 2 gandas 1 kara 11 dhurs of land saying it to be his jote land and he received consideration money of jote land from the complainant whereas, he had only 1 ganda 2 karas of jote land and the rest was khas land and pathway land which he did not mention in his sale deed and therefore, there is a prima facie case that the petitioner having knowledge that the sold out land consists khas land and pathway land, misrepresented the respondent and thereafter cheated him. 7. 7. The backbone of the case is very simple. Petitioner sold out 2 gandas 1 kara 11 dhurs of land to the complainant saying it to be his absolute jote land, received consideration money and executed sale deed thereof. The complainant when applied for mutation, it was found that the out of the sold out land only 1 ganda 2 karas was the jote land of the petitioner and the rest was khas land and pathway Hand which the petitioner did not belong at the time of execution of the sale deed. The bundle of facts prima facie constitutes the ingredients of cheating as defined in Section 415 IPC. The word cheating is defined in Section 415 of IPC thus:- 415. Cheating – Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. Explanation – A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 8. If we go through the above definition with its explanation and illustrations, it makes out a clear meaning that a dishonest concealment of fact is a deception within the meaning of that section. The prima facie allegation as reported by the police after investigation is that the accused petitioner concealed the fact that the sold out land consists khas land and pathway land but executed the sale deed saying it to be jote land and therefore, the accused prima facie committed an offence and hence charge-sheeted. 9. The word dishonestly has been defined in Section 24 of IPC, thus:- 24. Dishonestly – Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly. The word fraudulently has been defined in Section 25 of IPC, thus: 25. Fraudulently – A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The word fraudulently has been defined in Section 25 of IPC, thus: 25. Fraudulently – A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The prima facie allegation so far made against the accused is that he received consideration money saying the total sold out land as jote land whereas, it consists khas land and pathway land which did not belong to him when the sale deed was executed and therefore, prima facie ingredients of cheating that he has dishonestly and fraudulently obtained the consideration money showing khas land and pathway land as his jote land is made out. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that it was a case of civil dispute prima facie does not stand and in my considered opinion, the trial court rightly decided to proceed with the trial of the case and the Sessions Court rightly decided not to interfere with the decision of the trial court. 10. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik in course of his argument relied on the case laws reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 ; (2009)3 SCC 78 and (2009)8 SCC 571. The case of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. & other reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 relates to a dispute arising from breach of contract. The factual matrix is completely different to that of the present case. However, the observation made in para 10 of the reported judgment may be gainfully noted here which reads thus:- While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. 2000(2) SCC 636 , this Court observed: It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While no One with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under section 250 Cr. P.C. more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant Be that as it may. 11. The case of V.Y. Jose & another vs. State of Gujarat & another reported in (2009)3 SCC 78 also relates to a contract of supply and the factual situation is different to that of the case at hand, however, the observation made by the Apex Court in that case may be profitably noted as under:- Only because civil law can be taken recourse to would not necessarily mean that criminal proceedings should be barred. However, there exists a distinction between pure contractual dispute of a civil nature and an offence of cheating. However, there exists a distinction between pure contractual dispute of a civil nature and an offence of cheating. Although breach of contract per se would not come in the way of initiation of a criminal proceeding yet in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition where from the ingredients of an offence can be found out, the court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction a under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Section 482 serves a salutary purpose that a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years although no case has been made out against him. A matter which essentially involves dispute of a civil nature should not be allowed to be the subject-matter of a criminal offence, the latter being a short cut of executing a decree which is nonexistent. The superior courts, with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice, should not allow abuse of the process of court. They have a duty in terms of Section 483 to supervise functioning of trial courts. 12. In the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & other vs. State of Bihar & another, reported in (2009)8 SCC 751 is entirely on a different factual situation and the fact of that case has no bearing with the feet of the present case at hand and therefore, I find nothing to refer the ratio of that decision in the present case. 13. The Supreme Court has held that different cases have different facts and it is the totality of evidence and the impact that it has on the mind of the court that is important. No straight jacket formula can be evolved in such matters and each case must rest on its own facts. It is settled law that however similar the circumstances, facts in one case cannot be used as a precedent to determine the conclusion on the facts in another. (Ramdas & other vs. State of Maharastra (2007)2 SCC 170 ). 14. On going through the case records, I find that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC considering the police report (charge-sheet) filed against the petitioner. The Magistrate yet to decide as to whether the materials placed with the charge sheet constitutes prima facie offence under Section 420 IPC or not. 14. On going through the case records, I find that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC considering the police report (charge-sheet) filed against the petitioner. The Magistrate yet to decide as to whether the materials placed with the charge sheet constitutes prima facie offence under Section 420 IPC or not. If an offence under Section 420 IPC is prima facie found to have committed, trial should be according to the procedure prescribed in Chapter XIX of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 239 of the Code prescribes provision when accused shall be discharged, which reads thus:- 239. When accused shall be discharged. If, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. Section 240 of the Code prescribes the law regarding framing of charge which reads thus:- 240. Framing of charge:- (1) If, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try, and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 15. Law has made it abundantly clear that if the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under that Chapter, he should frame the charge. It is not necessarily that prima facie case is to be made out at the time of framing of charge against the accused. 16. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find nothing to disturb the criminal proceeding initiated against the accused petitioner. Under such circumstances, the accused petitioner is required to appear before the criminal court and face trial. 17. The criminal petition accordingly stands dismissed. Send back the L.C. Records along with a copy of this judgment. 16. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find nothing to disturb the criminal proceeding initiated against the accused petitioner. Under such circumstances, the accused petitioner is required to appear before the criminal court and face trial. 17. The criminal petition accordingly stands dismissed. Send back the L.C. Records along with a copy of this judgment. Petition dismissed.