JUDGMENT : C.R. Sarma, J. By this application, filed under Section 482, read with Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, the Cr.P.C.), the petitioner, who is one of the accused persons in Panbazar P.S. Case No. 77/2015, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, the IPC), has prayed for quashing the said proceeding. 2. The petitioner, who is a police officer (IPS), intending to purchase a plot of land from its owner, Sri Mayur Talukdar, situated at Noonmati area, approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, vide application, dated 12.9.2011, seeking permission for sale in respect of the said plot of land together with a RCC building standing thereon. The value of the said land, in the said application, was mentioned as Rs. 2,00,000/- per khata. 3. The value of the transaction was fixed at Rs. 15,00,000/- per bigha i.e. Rs. 3,00,000/- per khata and the total sale price of the land stood at Rs. 46,00,000/-. However, on the basis of the note prepared by the Stamp Reporter, the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, by his note, dated 21.12.2011, fixed the total value of the land at Rs. 72, 75,000/- 4. Accordingly, permission being granted, fixing the said value, petitioner paid necessary stamp duty and registration fees on Rs. 72, 75,000/-, the sale deed was executed and registered, on 22.1.2011, in favour of the petitioner. 5. Subsequently, as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrjup (Metro), Guwahati, the respondent No. 3 i.e. Sri Dhurba Jyoti Das, Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati conducted an enquiry into the matter and submitted a factual report, dated 17.06.2013, relating to fixation of land value and issue of NOC. The said report reads as follows: "GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, GUWAHATI No. Dated 17/06/13 To, The Deputy Commissioner Kamrup Metropolitan District, Guwahati Sub: - Factual report relating to fixation of land value and issue of NOC thereof in favour of Shri Anurag Agarwal and Shri Anivesh Kr Goel Ref: - NOC no. KRM (M) 5/2010/9300 dated 04/11/2011. Sir, With reference to the above cited subject, I have the honour to submit herewith factual report in regard to the subject cited above- 1. KRM (M) 5/2010/9300 dated 04/11/2011. Sir, With reference to the above cited subject, I have the honour to submit herewith factual report in regard to the subject cited above- 1. On 2/9/2011 seller Shri Mayur Talukdar submitted petition to Circle officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle for obtaining NOC for land sale of the following scheduled land in favour of Shri Anurag Agarwal and Shri Avinesh Kr. Goel. Schedule of the land Mauza-Ulubari Village-Noonmati PP No.-248 Dag No.-185 Area-64.95 Are, Class of land-Ditiwa (second class)Basti. 2. The Circle Officer, Guwahati submitted the required report for land sale to the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup(Metro) on 20/10/11 stating the land as hilly land and assessing the value as i) Rs. 10, 00,000.00 per bigha as per actual consideration between seller and buyer(as per their application) and ii) Rs. 75, 00,000.00 per bigha as per notified zonal valuation dated 20/08/2011 (photo copy enclosed at annexure-i). 3. On the basis of the report received from the Circle Officer, Guwahati ADC, I/C, Land sale Branch, Sri Nareswar Upadhayaya, ACS. issued NOC for land sale at the rate of Rs. 20 lac per bigha vide office order no. KRM (M)/5/2010/9300 dated 04/11/2011 mentioning that it is a highly land as stated in the report of circle Officer, Guwahati Revenue Circle in column 8 of prescribed format for report. However, no detail justification was found to be elaborated in the check list or in the concerned file (Photo copy of NOC is at Annexure-ii). 4. On 23/11/2011 seller, Sri Mayur Talukdar submitted petition requesting to reduce the land value from 20 lakh to 10 to 15 lakh. Receiving the petition the ADC directed the branch to put up the petition in concerned file along with the original proposal. Concerned Asst. put up the petition in file no. KRM(M) 17/2011 (part) for necessary order detailing the contents of the petition that the seller has requested to reduce the value of NOC from 20 Lac to 10 to 15 lac stating that the land is a hilly land and situated far away (2 Kms away) from main road. ADC then considered Rs. 15 lac as the value and had noted in the note sheet of the file. But, no justification was elaborated in the file. The record of file is also silent about the fact that any physical verification was done to ascertain the facts. ADC then considered Rs. 15 lac as the value and had noted in the note sheet of the file. But, no justification was elaborated in the file. The record of file is also silent about the fact that any physical verification was done to ascertain the facts. (photo copy of note sheet is enclosed at Annexure-iii) 5. On verification of zonal valuation report as notified vide no. KRS 423/2011/ dated 20/8/2011, it is observed that for lands like commercial/residential (code-0115 & 0119, type-Urban) from Anuradha to Noonmati within 200 metres zonal vaule was fixed at Rs. 75,00,000.00 per bigha. But, there was no mention of any valuation beyond 200 metres. However, in the same notification zonal valuation for all areas of Sunsali and Clearance Garden was fixed at Rs. 35, 00, 000. 00 per bigha. Sunsali and Clearance Garden (code-119, type-urban) are located just beyond greater Noonmati area and are adjacent to Noonmati area (copy enclosed at Annexure-iv). On my query about non inclusion of zonal valuation beyond 200 metres of Anuradha to Noonmati, Circle Officer Guwahati reported that as per resolution of zonal valuation committee meeting held on 20.08.11, within 200 metres of all roads of Noonmati sahar, zonal valuation was fixed at Rs. 75,00,0000.00 per bigha. He has been reporting that value for land sale permission reports since the notification and no objection has been received by him (copy of Co's report is annexed at-V). However, on verification I could not locate any such copy of resolution in the concerned file. 6. On physical verification of the site of land following points are noticed- (a) The land is located in a small hillock and approximately 600 to 800 metres away from New Guwahati Chowk of Anuradha-Noonmati main road. (b) Out of the total area of 64.95 Ares (4B-4K-5L), 4.01Are (0B-2K-10L) is used for house-site purpose. The house was built at a level difference of around 20 feet from the PWD road coming from New Guwahati Chowk via Ganesh Mandir. In the application and also in affidavits submitted by both the seller and the purchasers for obtaining land sale permission, mention of one RCC building standing over the plot of land was there. But, there was no mention of any building in the NOC as well as in the sale deed executed. In the application and also in affidavits submitted by both the seller and the purchasers for obtaining land sale permission, mention of one RCC building standing over the plot of land was there. But, there was no mention of any building in the NOC as well as in the sale deed executed. In the report of Circle Officer (in lot mandals report) also there was no mention of any building standing on the plot. So, for issue of NOC the value of the building was not assessed., (c) The remaining part of land is steep hilly area which is located about 150 to 200 feet height from the ground level. 7. As per Govt. notification issued on 05/12/2003 vide memo no. RRG 3/2003/13, the zonal value fixed for Noonmati area was Rs. 2 lakhs per katha, i.e. Rs. 10 lakhs per bigha. 8. As regards manipulation of record, neither ADC nor office staff could give any justification. Rather, they divulged that they were unaware about the manipulation. 9. As per revised guideline for fixation of zonal valuation issued by the Govt. vide no. REGN. 61/2005/194 dated 16th September, 2009, the District Level Land Valuation Committee should consider certain points like classification of land, the rate of revenue assessment, value of adjacent land or lands in the vicinity, the nature of crop raised, average annual yield etc. (copy of Govt. notification enclosed at Annexure-vi) 10. The class of land is second class basti land. 11. Senior Sub-Registrar has submitted a statement of value of consideration fixed for execution of sale deed of Noonmati area for the period from June/2011 to December 2011 (copy enclosed at vii). 12. Revenue assessed for the said land is Rs. 12,501.00 for 64.95 Are for the revenue years 1416 and 1417 (land revenue receipt enclosed at viii) From the points as discussed above the following points can be inferred- 1. For issue of NOC, the application of the parties and the documents like affidavits were not properly consulted, at the Circle level as well as the level of ADC, as the value of existing building was not considered, 2. Ambiguity was there in the zonal valuation report as to the main roads and other roads, 3. In the zonal valuation report there is no clarity as to the fixation of value for lands like hilly land etc. 4. Ambiguity was there in the zonal valuation report as to the main roads and other roads, 3. In the zonal valuation report there is no clarity as to the fixation of value for lands like hilly land etc. 4. As per revenue record the class of land is second class basti only. 5. For clearing any confusion at the level of ADC, neither clarification from Circle Officer was asked nor any enquiry was done, as per record available in the file Submitted for favour of your kind information and necessary action. Yours faithfully Dhruba Jyoti. Das Addl Deputy Commissioner Kamrup Metro District Guwahati." 6. The said report, dated 17.6.2013 was forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge of Panbazar Police Station, on 21.3.2015, for treating the same as an FIR and taking necessary action against the persons involved and accordingly, the said report (FIR) was registered as Panbazar P.S. Case No. 77/2015, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC, against the petitioner, Sri Anurag Agarwal and some officers of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati Revenue Branch. 7. A matter, alleging accumulation of property, beyond the known source of income of the petitioner, purchase of a big plot of land with building and under valuation of the property was referred to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Assam and the Additional Director General of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam, by his letter, dated 3.10.2015, recommended a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner. Pursuant to the said request, the Deputy Secretary, to the Govt. of Assam by his letter, dated 9.11.2015, communicated to the Addl. Director General of Police (Vigilance) the approval of the Govt. to initiate a preliminary enquiry with a request to submit report. Accordingly, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Assam and submitted his view on 21.4.2013. 8. In the said report, it was stated that the petitioner had executed a deed of agreement for purchase of a plot of land, measuring 64.9 Are i.e. 4 Bighas 4 Khatas 5 Lessas along with RCC building, situated at Noonmati and the sale deed was executed by its owner, Sri Mayur Talukdar, on 8.12.2011, in favour of the petitioner. 9. In the said report, it was stated that though the zonal valuation of the land, situated from Anuradha to Noonmati was fixed at Rs. 9. In the said report, it was stated that though the zonal valuation of the land, situated from Anuradha to Noonmati was fixed at Rs. 75, 00,000/- per bigha, the petitioner, while fixing the valuation for the purpose of stamp duty, the Govt. approved zonal valuation flouted and fixed the total value of the land at Rs. 46,00,000/- and paid stamp duty on total value of the land at Rs. 72,75,000/- and thus the sale deed was registered, causing loss of Rs. 48,00,000/- to the Government and gain to the purchaser. 10. In the said report, it was also mentioned that the officers of different branches, working in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati were responsible for causing the said loss to the Govt. Accordingly suggestions were made for according necessary approval of the Government for initiation of a regular enquiry. 11. The gist of the said preliminary enquiry was that, though the agreement for sale of the land was, initially, made with the petitioner, the sale deed was jointly executed in favour of the petitioner and his brother-in-law, Sri Anivesh Kumar Goel and that the value of the land, as per registered sale deed, was shown to be Rs. 72,75,000.00, whereas the minimum value fixed by the Govt. was Rs. 75,00,000.00 per bigha and, thus, the petitioner, in purchasing the land, paid less stamp duty and registration fees by influencing the revenue officers in fixing the value of land at Rs. 15,00,000/- per bigha. 12. The actual market value of the land, as alleged, was Rs. 3 crore, which was disproportionate to his known source of income, inasmuch as, the petitioner's income was Rs. 47,00, 000/- only and the under valuation of the property stood at Rs. 2, 91,00, 000/- which amount was disproportionate to the known source of the income of the petitioner. 13. The petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by filing WP(C) No. 2953/2013 challenged the said preliminary enquiry report. The Hon'ble Chief Justice (Acting) by his judgment and order, dated 1.4.2015, while disposing the said writ petition observed as follows: "35. In the face of such material, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that permission be granted for regular enquiry is untenable. The Hon'ble Chief Justice (Acting) by his judgment and order, dated 1.4.2015, while disposing the said writ petition observed as follows: "35. In the face of such material, the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that permission be granted for regular enquiry is untenable. In fact, the decision of the Supreme Court in Upendra Singh's case disclose that the Court can only interfere if on the charges framed, no misconduct or other irregularity alleged is established. In this case, the findings in the preliminary report and the sanction for regular enquiry are blatantly contrary to the record and do not disclose any sort of misconduct on the part of the petitioner. In that view of the matte, the writ petition is allowed. The preliminary enquiry report and the order of regular enquiry are quashed." 14. In view of disposal of the said writ petition in his favour, the petitioner, by his letter dated 22.4.2015, submitted a copy of the judgment and order, dated 1.4.2015, aforesaid before the Officer-in-Charge of Panbazar Police Station with a request to do the needful. But the Director General of Police, Assam by his order, dated 13.5.2015 transferred the said Panbazar P.S. Case No. 77/2015 to the CID, Assam and the CID, Assam was also approached by the petitioner for taking corrective measures as per the judgment and order, dated 1.4.2015, aforesaid. 15. According to the petitioner, the FIR registered against him does not make out a prima facie case, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC, against him and as such, in view of absence of any ingredients of the said offences and the observation made in the writ petition aforesaid, the FIR, so far it relates to the petitioner, is liable to be quashed. It has also been stated, in the said petition, that due to registration of the said FIR, the service career as well as the social life of the petitioner has been adversely affected, causing irreparable loss to him. 16. In view of the above, aggrieved by the initiation of the said proceeding, the petitioner has come up with this quashment petition. 17. Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondents. 18. Mr. 16. In view of the above, aggrieved by the initiation of the said proceeding, the petitioner has come up with this quashment petition. 17. Heard Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondents. 18. Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the proceeding initiated by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Assam on the same subject matter and in view of the decision made in the judgment and order, dated 1.4.2015, passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 2953/2013, whereby the enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in case No. RE 6(5)/2013 has been set aside and quashed, has submitted that the present proceeding can't stand the scrutiny of law and that another investigation relating to a criminal proceeding, on the same subject matter, can't be maintained. It is also submitted that, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , there being sufficient delay in lodging the FIR, the investigating agency ought to have made preliminary enquiry before registering a case and that, in view of registration of present case, on the same subject matter, the present proceeding cannot be maintained. 19. The learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has further contended that the petitioner, who is a purchaser of a plot of land had no role to play in fixing the valuation of the land for the purpose of stamp duty and as such he cannot be held guilty for under valuation of the land, inasmuch as the sale permission, authorising purchase and sale of land, was granted by the appropriate authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, fixing the land value at Rs. 72,7500.00 on which amount the stamp duty was duly paid by the petitioner. 20. It has been further submitted that the zonal value of the land @ Rs. 75,00,000/- per bigha, as mentioned in the ADC's report, dated 17.6.2013, related to the land sithated within 200 meters radius from the Anuradha point to Noonmati and that the land purchased by the petitioner, having been situated beyond 200 meter radius, is not covered by the said zonal value and as such no loss was caused to the State of Assam by paying stamp duty on Rs. 72,75,000/-, which was the value fixed by the appropriate authority. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the report, dated 17.6.2013, which has been treated as an FIR, has submitted that the basic allegations, made in the said FIR, are (1) that at the time of issuing NOC, the relevant document were not properly consulted at the Circle level as well as ADC level for the purpose of fixing the valuation and (2) that the existence of building, on the said plot of land, was not considered in fixing the valuation in granting sale permission. 22. In view of the said allegations, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said allegations are directed against the officials of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and that the petitioner has no role to play in fixing the valuation as well as granting the sale permission. The learned counsel, for the petitioner, has also submitted that the vendor of the land prayed for sale permission and on receipt of sale permission, the petitioner purchased the land by paying stamp duty on the basis of the value fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 23. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no ingredients of the offences, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC have been made out against the petitioner and as such, the continuance of the said proceeding, against the petitioner, who is a responsible high ranking IPS officer, will amount to unnecessary harassment, resulting miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the said proceeding, in respect of the petitioner aforesaid, for preventing abuse of process of court and miscarriage of justice. 24. In support of his contention, the learned counsel, for the petitioner, has relied on the following decisions: - 1. Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 2. T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors, reporte in (2001) 6 SCC 181 . 3. Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarkhand & Ors, reported (2013) 11 SCC 673 . 4. State of Haryana & Ors v. Bhajanlal & Ors, reported in 1992 (Supp.(1) SCC 335. 5. Anurag Agarwal v. the State of Assam and Ors, passed in WP (c) No. 5540/2013. 6. 3. Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarkhand & Ors, reported (2013) 11 SCC 673 . 4. State of Haryana & Ors v. Bhajanlal & Ors, reported in 1992 (Supp.(1) SCC 335. 5. Anurag Agarwal v. the State of Assam and Ors, passed in WP (c) No. 5540/2013. 6. Anurag Agarwal IPS v. the State of Assam and Ors, passed in WP (c) No. 2953/2013. 25. Refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent, supporting the proceeding initiated against the petitioner and others, has submitted that the continuance of the impugned proceeding against the petitioner is necessary to unearth the truth regarding under valuation of the purchased land and fix responsibility on the earring persons concerned. 26. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that the subject matter of this case was also included in the enquiry taken up by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Assam vide case No. RE 6(5)/2013 and that the preliminary Enquiry Report as well as the order for regular enquiry by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department has been quashed by the learned Chief Justice (Acting) by his order, dated 1.4.2015, passed in WP(C) No. 2953/2013. 27. Having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, I have carefully perused the report, dated 17.6.2013 (FIR), submitted by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Sri Dhurba Jyoti Das, ADC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, which has been treated as the FIR, giving rise to this proceeding and the judgment and order dated 1.4.2015, passed by the learned Chief Justice (Acting) in WPC No. 2953/2013. 28. Admittedly, the subject matter of this proceeding relates to under valuation of the land purchased by the petitioner and nonpayment of appropriate stamp duty. According to the prosecution, though the zonal valuation of the concerned plot of land was fixed at Rs. 75,00,000/per bigha, the petitioner paid the stamp duty on total amount of Rs. 72,75,000/- and executed the sale deed on 22.12.2011. Undisputedly under valuation of the land and nonpayment of the appropriate stamp duty were also the subject matters of the preliminary enquiry, conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and the order for regular enquiry, which have been quashed by the writ court aforesaid. 72,75,000/- and executed the sale deed on 22.12.2011. Undisputedly under valuation of the land and nonpayment of the appropriate stamp duty were also the subject matters of the preliminary enquiry, conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and the order for regular enquiry, which have been quashed by the writ court aforesaid. The matter regarding payment of stamp duty was also considered by a learned Single Judge of this court, in WPC No. 5540/2013 (Anuragh Agarwal v. State of Assam and 5 others (date of order 01.09.2015). 29. From the orders, dated 1.9.2015 and 1.4.2015, passed by the writ court in the said writ petitions, it is found that the land purchased by the petitioner was found to be situated beyond 200 meters radius from Anuradha to Noonmati. Admittedly, stamp duty has been paid at Rs. 72,75,000/-, which was the value fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by his note dated 21.12.2011. As revealed from the order dated 1.9.2015 aforesaid, the said value was fixed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati on the basis of the note given by the stamp reporter. 30. Therefore, it is clearly found that the petitioner had paid stamp duty on the value of the land, which was fixed by the appropriate authority. That apart, the zonal value at the rate of Rs. 75,00,000/- per bigha was applicable to the land, situated within 200 meter radius from Anuradha to Noonmati. As the petitioner's land was situated beyond 200 meter radius from Anuradh to Noonmati, the said zonal valuation of the land was not applicable to the petitioner. 31. From the order, dated 1.9.2015, it appears that the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by his notification dated 21.5.2013, modified the earlier zonal valuation and indicated that the valuation of the land @ Rs. 75, 00,000/- per bigha will be applicable to entire Noonmati Revenue Village under Guwahati Revenue Circle. 32. In view of the said modification, the Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 30.8.2013 observed that the value of the land, purchased by the petitioner, was undervalued and as such, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 279 (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Assam Amendment), the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, directed the petitioner to deposit the requisite short stamp to be levied on the basis of land value of Rs. 75,00,000/- per bigha and the amount payable by way of short levy of the stamp duty was fixed at Rs. 23,34,000/- and the registration fees was fixed at Rs. 24,73,500/- 33. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, the learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 1.9.2015, aforesaid opined that notice, dated 13.8.2013, issued by the District Collector, Kamrup (M), Guwahati was not maintainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same was interfered with. The learned Single Judge also observed that the stamp duty and registration fees paid by the petitioner in respect of sale deed, executed on 22.12.2011, could not be held to be short payment. 34. From the above, it appears that the contentions that the value of the land was undervalued and that the petitioner had paid short stamp duty, were negated. 35. In the report, dated 17.6.2013 (i.e. the FIR), it has been mentioned that in the application and also in the affidavit, submitted by both the seller and purchaser, for obtaining sale permission, i.e. existence of one RCC building, on the concerned plot of land, was also mentioned, but in the NOC, there was no mention with regard to the said building. Admittedly NOC was issued by the appropriate authority on the basis of the application, aforementioned and as such no fault can be attributed to the petitioner. For the failure, on the part of the concerned authority to mention about the existence of the RCC building in the NOC was issued, the petitioner i.e. the purchaser cannot be held to be guilty. 36. While allowing the writ petition (WP(c) No. 2953/2013), the writ court observed as follows: "28. The notification, dated 20.08.2011, with the tabular column pertaining to different villages in the Kamrup (Metro) disclose fixation of registration value of the properties at different locations. The said document is undisputedly an authentic and inscrutably credible material. In the said document, the properties in Anuradha to Noonmati within 200 meters the value is fixed at Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha and beyond 200 meters, no fixation of value is provided. Therefore, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to fix the value. The petitioner has produced credible material to show that his purchaser has applied to Deputy Commissioner for fixation of registration value for the purpose of registration. 75 lakhs per bigha and beyond 200 meters, no fixation of value is provided. Therefore, it is for the Deputy Commissioner to fix the value. The petitioner has produced credible material to show that his purchaser has applied to Deputy Commissioner for fixation of registration value for the purpose of registration. The Additional Deputy Commissioner has issued a certificate fixing the market value of Rs. 15 lakhs per bigha. The said assessment of value is not in conflict with the notification dated 20.08.2011 because the property is obviously beyond 200 meters. When there is no official fixation in the notification, it is obviously for the Deputy Commissioner considering the attending circumstances and advantages and disadvantages has fixed the registration value at Rs. 15 lakhs per bigha and it is at the instance of the seller. The other six sale transactions have been registered for the same value in respect of the same locality. It may be that in the year 2013, the authorities, realised that the potential value of the property in the entire Noonmati area is quite high and, therefore, fixed the value at Rs. 75 lakhs per bigha irrespective of the distance of 200 meters from the road. In view of the said material, it cannot be said that there is any undue influence or misrepresentation either by the seller or by the purchaser in getting the market value fixed. The fixation of the market value by the Additional Deputy Commissioner also cannot be said as mala fide and contrary to the notification." 37. In view of the above, it cannot be held that the petitioner had, in any manner, made undue influence or representation in getting value of the land fixed. 38. From the arguments, advanced by the learned counsel and having heard the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties and considering the entire aspect of the matter, it is clearly found that the petitioner, along with the vendor, had approached the appropriate authority seeking sale permission and after obtaining permission, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, on payment of necessary stamp duty and registration fees, on the basis of the valuation fixed by the appropriate authority. There is nothing on record, more particularly in the FIR i.e. the report, dated 17.6.2013 aforesaid, to show that the petitioner had played any undue role in fixation of the value of the land. There is nothing on record, more particularly in the FIR i.e. the report, dated 17.6.2013 aforesaid, to show that the petitioner had played any undue role in fixation of the value of the land. The FIR reveals that the concerned authority, at the Circle level and the ADC level did not consider the relevant documents like affidavit, the application for NOC, and the value of the existing building in fixing the valuation and that there was ambiguity in the zonal valuation report as to the main roads and other roads. In the FIR, it appears, that there was no clarity with regard to the fixation of valuation of the land like hilly land. The said allegations, made in the report, i.e. the FIR point acquisition to the concerned officer of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 39. In the present case, the FIR has been registered for the offences, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC. To constitute an offence, punishable under Section 420 IPC, dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time of initial transaction i.e. at the beginning must exist. (61) In the case of Hariprasad Chamariya v. Bishun Kumar Sureka, (1973) 2 SCC 823 , it has been held that absence of allegation of dishonest or fraudulent intention, at the time of the initial transaction will not constitute the offence under section 420 IPC. It was also held that breach of contractual liability will not create criminal liability. (64) In the case of Devendra & Ors v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2009) 7 SCC 495 , the Supreme Court, while quashing a proceeding under Section 420 and 467 IPC, reiterated the principles of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and held that to constitute an offence under section 420 IPC, the ingredients of Section 415 IPC i.e. misrepresentation must be there from the very beginning of contract. (65) In the case of Joseph Salvaraj A v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2011) 7 SCC 59 , the Supreme Court observed that to constitute the offence under Section 420 IPC dishonest intention must exist at the beginning, which is sine-quo-non to hold a person guilty of committing the said offence. (65) In the case of Joseph Salvaraj A v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2011) 7 SCC 59 , the Supreme Court observed that to constitute the offence under Section 420 IPC dishonest intention must exist at the beginning, which is sine-quo-non to hold a person guilty of committing the said offence. (66) In the case of Manoranjan Halder v. M/s. Machfab Engineering Industries 1983(2) G.LR 110, the Supreme Court held that in order to constitute the offence under section 420 IPC intention to cheat must be there with the accused at the time of initial transaction and that in the event of existence of intention to pay against delivery of goods, subsequent failure to pay will not convert the transaction into a case of cheating. As held in the said case there must be circumstance, showing in clear way, that the accused had such a dishonest intention at the initial stage. In the event of absence of such intention at the beginning, subsequent breach of contract will be a matter of purely civil nature. (68) In the case of Pranjyoti Bhuyan v. State of Assam, 2014 (1) GLT 887 a learned Single Judge of this Court held that to constitute the offence under section 420 IPC dishonest or fraudulent intention must exist at the beginning of the transaction. (69) From the above cited decisions and the principles laid down therein, it is clear that, to establish an offence under Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC, it must be shown that the accused had the dishonest and fraudulent intention at the initial stage of making the proposal or the transaction. 40. In the present case, sale permission was sought for by the vendor and the petitioner had paid stamp duty, on the basis of fixation of valuation of land, by the appropriate authority. Fixation of value of the land for the purpose of stamp duty etc. was the duty of the appropriate authority and not of the vendor of the land or the buyer i.e. the petitioner. 41. There is nothing, on record, to show that the petitioner had any dishonest or fraudulent intention to cause any loss to the Government or cheat the Government. Therefore, the allegations, made in the FIR, do not, prima facie, reveal ingredients of offences under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. 42. 41. There is nothing, on record, to show that the petitioner had any dishonest or fraudulent intention to cause any loss to the Government or cheat the Government. Therefore, the allegations, made in the FIR, do not, prima facie, reveal ingredients of offences under Section 415 punishable under Section 420 IPC. 42. The offence, under Section 468 IPC relates to forgery for the purpose of cheating. Forgery is defined by Section 463 IPC. It relates to making any false document/documents or false electronic report or part of record or electronic report with intention to cause damage or injury to public or any private person(s). Making of false document with intention to cause damage or commit fraud is the basic ingredient of the offence under Section 468 IPC. 43. In the present case, there is nothing, on record to show that the petitioner had, in any manner, made any false document for the purpose of causing harm to the public or any person. 44. The concerned document i.e. the sale permission, has been issued by the appropriate authority, on the basis of the application, filed by the vendor. There is no prima facie material to show that the petitioner had committed any offence under Section 468 IPC, inasmuch as he had no role to play in preparing the sale permission. 45. The offence under Section 471 IPC relates to act of using as genuine a false document or electronic record. As the petitioner had paid stamp duty, on the basis of the valuation fixed by the appropriate authority in respect of the land purchased by him, there is no prima facie material indicating that he had used any false document as genuine. 46. The entire facts and circumstances of this case, as indicated above, do not suggest that the petitioner had entered into any conspiracy with any officials, in fixing the valuation of the land. 47. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the allegations made against the petitioner do not reveal a prima facie case. 48. The law regarding quashment of FIR/complaint/proceeding has been settled in a catena of decisions. 47. In view of the above, I have no hesitation in holding that the allegations made against the petitioner do not reveal a prima facie case. 48. The law regarding quashment of FIR/complaint/proceeding has been settled in a catena of decisions. As held in the case of Madhabrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandojirao Angra reported in (1998) 1 SCC 692, when a prosecution, at initial stage, is asked to be quashed , the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the un-controverted allegations, as made, prima-facie establish the offence. If it is found that the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and if no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, then the Court taking into consideration the special facts of a case also can quash the proceeding even at an early stage. 49. The Supreme Court, in the case of Bhajanlal (Supra), has laid down the following guidelines with regard to the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code, except under an order of a Magistrate within at he purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 50. In the case of State of Orissa and another (Supra), the Supreme Court, held that while exercising the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. the role of the trial court should not be played and that the High Court should not try to appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the materials are sufficient or not for convicting the accused. The Supreme Court referred to the following categories of cases summarised in the case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1960 SC 866 ) for exercising the powers to quash the proceedings. "9. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings: (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their entirely do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. (SRC p. 393)". 51. In the case of N. Sundaran (Supra), the Supreme Court observed that High Court will refrain from giving a prima facie direction unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. (SRC p. 393)". 51. In the case of N. Sundaran (Supra), the Supreme Court observed that High Court will refrain from giving a prima facie direction unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. The Supreme Court also observed that if the allegations made in the complaint do not make out an offence then any quashing of the proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. would be justified. 52. In the case of Sanjay Singh Ram Rao Chavan (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the process of criminal court should not be permitted to be used as a weapon of harassment. It has also been held that unmerited and undeserved prosecution is infringement of the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 53. In the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 , the Supreme Court, while laying down the principle of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., observed that High Court is to exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal proceeding for preventing abuse of process of the Court and secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court has delineated the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.: " 30. 1. Step one: Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? k" 30. 2. Step two: Whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? "30. 3. Step three: Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? "30. 4. Step four: Whether the proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?" 54. Step three: Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? "30. 4. Step four: Whether the proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?" 54. In view of the above, principles of law laid down by the apex court and the directions and observations made in WP (c) No. 5540/2013 and WP (c) No. 1415/2013, as no prima facie case under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC has been made out, I am of the considered opinion that continuance with the present proceeding against the petitioner will lead to unnecessary harassment, causing miscarriage of justice. 55. Therefore, in order to prevent the abuse of process of court and miscarriage of justice, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., I find it to be just and proper to interfere with the proceeding aforesaid. 56. In the case of T.T. Antony (Supra), it has been held that no case can be registered on the basis of the second FIR, on the same subject matter against the same person. In view of the Govt. Notification No. MP. 833/75/30, dated 19.11.1975, the preliminary enquiry conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Assam against the petitioner was an enquiry/investigation made by a Police Station on the same subject matter and as such, in view of quashment of the said enquiry by the order passed in the writ court in (WP (C) No. 2953/2013), the present proceeding, which has arisen out of another FIR, on the same subject matter, cannot be maintained in the eye of law. 57. In view of the decision held in the case of Lalita Kumari (Supra), the FIR in the present case, being lodged after a delay about 21 months, a preliminary enquiry, ought to have been made before registration of the case. But, in the present case, the Investigating Agency has registered the case, without conducting any preliminary enquiry to ascertain the existence of prima facie cognisable case. This lapse also goes against the prosecution. 58. In the light of the above discussion, I am inclined to hold that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the present criminal proceeding against the petitioner. This lapse also goes against the prosecution. 58. In the light of the above discussion, I am inclined to hold that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing with the present criminal proceeding against the petitioner. Rather, it will amount to miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of the court. Hence, I find sufficient merit in this criminal petition warranting interference. The petition is allowed. Accordingly, the criminal proceeding in Panbazar P.S. Case No. 77/2015, under Sections 120(B)/420/468/471 IPC, so far it relates to the present petitioner, is quashed.