JUDGMENT : (Mitali Thakuria, J.) : Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Mr. R. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking for quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.R. Case No. 573/2023, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate(S), Nagaon. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that on a complaint lodged by the respondent alleging inter-alia that the accused/petitioner along with one Mukul Das, proposed to sell 18 lessas of their land covered by Dag No. 167 of Periodic Patta No. 138 of Dimoroguri Kissam District Nagaon and according, the respondent along with 3(three) brothers agreed to purchase the land. Accordingly, for consideration amount was fixed at Rs.32,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty-two lakhs), and an agreement for sale of land in question was executed vide Registered Sale Deed No. 2080 dated 29.06.2022. On that very day, the respondent paid Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty lakhs) which was received by the accused/petitioners and agreed that sale permission would be procured within 3 (three) months and thereafter, the accused/petitioners would receive the remaining 12,00,000/-(Rupees Twelve Lakh). In the said agreement, it was stated that the land is free from all encumbrances. After a lapse of3(three) months, when the responded contacted the accused/petitioners, they kept making excuses and took time for executing the sale deed. Accordingly, suspicion arose and the respondent approached the Nagaon Circle Office and then, it was found that one Biswajit Saha had submitted an online objection against the sale of the land, on being asked the accused/petitioners admitted the transaction with one Biswajit Saha and stated that the transaction would be cleared by April, 2023 and thereafter, they will obtain the permission to execute the sale deed. But, even after the lapse of months of April, when the respondent and his brothers approached the accused/petitioners, they abused the respondent and his brothers with a filthy language and also threatened to kill them with the help of some organization. Thereafter, on 07.06.2023 subsequently, the respondent also came to know that a civil suit is pending between the accused/petitioners and one Biswajit Saha being T.S. No. 14/22. Thereafter, on 07.06.2023 subsequently, the respondent also came to know that a civil suit is pending between the accused/petitioners and one Biswajit Saha being T.S. No. 14/22. Thus, the accused/petitioners had suppressed the entire fact and with the intention to cheat and misappropriate the money of the respondent, the accused/petitioners entered into agreement for sale of the particular plot of land which they already sold to one Biswajit Saha. 4. After receiving the complaint, the respondent was examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Nagaon and finding a prima facie case cognizance has been taken against the accused/petitioners as well as one Mukul Das under Section 420/506/34 IPC vide order dated 12.06.2023 and summons were accordingly issued. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that prior to issue of summons, the learned Court below did not conduct any enquiry or investigation required under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and arrived at an erroneous decision and cognizance has been taken. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that complaint under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not mandatory when the accused persons reside in the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. But, in the instant case where some factual issues are involved, the inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is very much essential. He however, submitted that the learned Court below made no effort in deciding as to whether there is any actual truth in the allegations levelled by the respondent. In this context, he also relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported vide (2013)2SCC 488 in the case of National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz. 6. It is further submitted that the actual fact of the case is cleverly distorted by the respondent. The actual fact of the case is that the petitioner No. 2 is the owner and possessor of the land measuring 9 lessas covered by Dag No. 167 of Periodic Patta of Dimoroguri Kissam District Nagaon and one Mukul Das is the owner and possessor of the adjacent 9 lessas of land. Initially, the petitioner No. 2 had the possession over the entire 18 lessas of land which he purchased from one Premeshwar Bora by executinga sale deed on 03.01.2013. Subsequently, Mukul Das purchased 9 lessas of land from the petitioner No. 2 vide Registered Sale Deed No. 329 dated 04.03.2015. Initially, the petitioner No. 2 had the possession over the entire 18 lessas of land which he purchased from one Premeshwar Bora by executinga sale deed on 03.01.2013. Subsequently, Mukul Das purchased 9 lessas of land from the petitioner No. 2 vide Registered Sale Deed No. 329 dated 04.03.2015. However, it is admitted fact that the respondent entered into an agreement for sale of 18 lessas of land with the petitioners and one Mukul Das on 27.06.2022. But the respondent suppressed the fact that only 9 lessas of land belongs to the petitioners and other 9 lessas of land belongs to one Mukul Das. The respondent suggested the petitioner that he would obtain sale permission for 18 lessas of land and after obtaining the permission, the individual sale deeds for 9 lessas of their respective lands could be executed but subsequently, the said Mukul Das entered into an agreement with one Biswajit Saha for sale of 9 lessas of land for Rs. 14,00,000/-(Rupees Fourteen lakh) on 19.06.2019. But, later on he did not execute the land in favor of the said Biswajit Saha and then the said Biswajit Saha sent a legal notice to Mukul Das and subsequently, he filed a Title Suit being No. T.S. No. 14/2022 against the said Mukul Das, which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nagaon. 7. He further submitted that 9 lessas of land, for which, they entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent, is indeed free from all encumbrances and there is no suit, prior agreement for sale or any other issue with their portion of land. The dispute pertains to only the land owned by one Mukul Das and one Biswajit Saha and there is no role to play by the petitioners. The Title Suit is also pending before the said Mukul Das and one Biswajit Saha and the petitioners are neither parties to the said case nor they have any claim over the disputed land in Title Suit No. 13/2022. 8. It is further submitted that if any fraud or deceit committed, it is only by the said Mukul Das and not by the present petitioners. 8. It is further submitted that if any fraud or deceit committed, it is only by the said Mukul Das and not by the present petitioners. Moreso, the petitioner No.1 is absolutely no role to play in the entire case and he does not own any land and his not even a party in the agreement for sale and yet, he has been named as an accused in the complaint and the learned Court below issued summon to the petitioner No. 1 without any iota of evidence or materials. 9. Even after the entire allegations is taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence against the petitioner No. 1. And thereafter, the respondent put pressure on the petitioner No. 2 to sale the entire land in lesser amount and pressurized him to sale the land at Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakh). The petitioner No. 2 found this suggestion abhorrent since he had not done anything wrong and accordingly, the petitioner No. 2 also sent a legal notice to the respondent and his brothers seeking cancellation of the agreement for sale with a proposal to return Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakh) which he had received as an advanced amount. Only after receiving the notice from the petitioner No. 2, the respondent lodged the complaint only to exert pressure on the petitioner No. 2 to sale the land in lesser amount. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the learned Court below would have conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, he would have found that the petitioners were nowhere in the picture in the dispute between the said Mukul Das and Biswajit Saha nor they are the party in the Title Suit pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon. 11. Moreso, there is no evidence of any dishonest inducement on their part to prompt the respondent to pay money to them and so the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the present petitioners. 11. Moreso, there is no evidence of any dishonest inducement on their part to prompt the respondent to pay money to them and so the offence under Section 420 of IPC is not made out against the present petitioners. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned criminal proceedings has been initiated by the respondent only to abuse the process of law and the learned Court below did not make any attempt to verify the materials on record by means of an enquiry or investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and accordingly, it is submitted that it is a fit case wherein, the criminal proceedings can be set aside and quash by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 12. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1973) 3 SCC 753 in the case of Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs. The State of West Bengal &Anr. and emphasizes on paragraph 22 of the said judgement which reads as under: “22. Under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence, either on receiving a complaint or on a police report or on information otherwise received. Where a complaint is presented before him, he can under Section 200 take cognizance of the offence made out therein and has then to examine the complaint and the witnesses. The object of such examination is to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case against the person accused of the offence in the complaint, and to prevent the issue of process on a complaint which is either false or vaxatious or intended only to harass such a person. Such examination is provided therefore to find out whether there is or not sufficient ground for proceeding. Under Section 202, a Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint, may postpone the issue of process and either inquire into the case himself or direct an inquiry to be made by a Magistrate subordinate to him or by a police officer for ascertaining its truth or falsehood. Under Section 203, he may dismiss the complaint; if, after taking the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the investigation, if any, under Section 202, there is in his judgment “no sufficient ground for proceeding”. Under Section 203, he may dismiss the complaint; if, after taking the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the investigation, if any, under Section 202, there is in his judgment “no sufficient ground for proceeding”. The words “sufficient ground” used also in Section 209 have been construed to mean the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused by the evidence of witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit, and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. (See R.C. Ruia v. State of Bombay.) In Vadilal Panchal v. Ghadigaonker, this Court considered the scheme of Sections 200 to 203 and held that the inquiry envisaged there is for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint, that is, for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of process. The section does not say that a regular trial of adjudging truth or otherwise of the person complained against should take place at that stage, for, such a person can be called upon to answer the accusation made against him only when a process has been issued and he is on trial. Section 203 consists of two parts. The first part lays down the materials which the Magistrate must consider, and the second part says that if after considering those materials there is in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding, he may dismiss the complaint. In Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose3 where dismissal of a complaint by the Magistrate at the stage of Section 202 inquiry was set aside, this Court laid down that the test was whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there was sufficient ground for conviction, and observed (p. 653) that where there was prima facie evidence, even though the person charged of an offence in the complaint might have a defence the matter had to be left to be decided by the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage and issue of a process could not be refused. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case. In a revision against such a refusal, the High Court also has to apply the same test. Unless, therefore, the Magistrate finds that the evidence led before him is self-contradictory, or intrinsically untrustworthy, process cannot be refused if that evidence makes out a prima facie case. In a revision against such a refusal, the High Court also has to apply the same test. The question, therefore, is, whether while applying this test the Chief Presidency Magistrate was right in refusing process and the High Court in revision could confirm such a refusal.” 13. It is further submitted by Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no any materials or evidence against the petitioner No.1 and he is not even an owner or possessor of the land nor entered into an agreement for sale with the respondent. Without any reason or ground he has been made party in this case and the learned Court below without going into the actual fact of the case and only considering the statement of the complainant/the respondent had issued a process against the petitioner No. 1 by incorporating Section 34 IPC. 14. He further submitted that the common intention which is the gist of the principle of vicarious liability enshrined by Section 34 of the Indian penal Code can be result of a pre-mediated decision between several co-accused or in a given case such common intention can very well develop on the spur of the moment or at the scene of the crime. In this context, he also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2028/2009 dated 05.08.2013 in the case of Raghbir Chandand Ors. vs. State of Punjab. 15. He further relied on another decision of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1979 of 2010 (arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 7336 of 2007) dated 08.10.2010 in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors. and emphasizes on paragraph 33 & 34 of the said judgment which reads as under: “33. We shall now examine whether Appellant 2 could be made liable for the aforementioned offences by operation of Section 34 IPC. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd. & Ors. and emphasizes on paragraph 33 & 34 of the said judgment which reads as under: “33. We shall now examine whether Appellant 2 could be made liable for the aforementioned offences by operation of Section 34 IPC. It is trite that Section 34 IPC does not constitute a substantive offence, and is merely in the nature of a rule of evidence, and liability is fastened on a person who may have not been directly involved in the commission of the offence on the basis of a prearranged plan between that person and the persons who actually committed the offence. In order to attract Section 34 IPC the following ingredients must be established: (i) there was common intention in the sense of a prearranged plan; (ii) the person sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the offence. (See Chandrakant Murgyappa Umrani v. State of Maharashtra, Hamlet v. State of Kerala, SCC p. 116, para 17 and Surendra Chauhan v. State of M.P., SCC p. 117, para 11.)” 34. It is manifest that common intention refers to a prior concert or meeting of minds, and though, it is not necessary that the existence of a distinct previous plan must be proved, as such common intention may develop at the spur of the moment, yet the meeting of minds must be prior to the commission of offence suggesting the existence of a pre-arranged plan. Therefore, in order to attract Section 34 of the IPC, the complaint must, prima facie, reflect a common prior concert or planning amongst all the accused. In our opinion, in the present case, the complaint does not indicate the existence of any pre-arranged plan whereby appellant No. 2 had, in collusion, with the other accused decided to fabricate the document in question and adduce it in evidence before the arbitral tribunal. There is not even a whisper in the complaint indicating any participation of appellant No. 2 in the acts constituting the offence, and that being the case we are convinced that Section 34 IPC is not attracted in his case.” 16. There is not even a whisper in the complaint indicating any participation of appellant No. 2 in the acts constituting the offence, and that being the case we are convinced that Section 34 IPC is not attracted in his case.” 16. Reling on those decisions, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case there is no other evidence or materials to implicate the petitioner No. 1, who is neither a party to the agreement for sale norhe is the owner or possessor of the land in question and thus, Section 34 IPC does not attract against the petitioner No. 1 as there is no material to indicate any participation of the present No. 1 in the act constituting the offence. 17. In this context, Mr. R. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is for invoking the inherent power of this Court is an abuse of the process of law having disputed questions of fact involving the accused/petitioners and as such, unless the same is established in the trial, an interference at the nascent stage of complaint proceeding goes against the legislative intent of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 18. In support of his submission, Mr. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Apex Court passed in Case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported vide AIR 2021 SC 1918 , he relied on the paragraph 7 & 8 and mainly emphasized on the paragraph 8 of the said judgment which reads as under: 8. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. [See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary [ (1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 36: AIR 1993 SC 892 ] and Raghubir Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1964 SC 1 : (1964) 1 Cri LJ 1].] It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and, on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint/FIR has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant or disclosed in the FIR that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint/FIR is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceeding.” 19. He further submitted that the respondent has been a victim of fraud as he along with his brothers were cheated by the petitioners and one namely Mukul Das (co-accused in the complaint petition) as they hatched a conspiracy together to defraud the respondent and others thereby, made them to sign the agreement for sale No. 2080 dated 27.06.2022 and misappropriated Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) and the said amount is still not repaid by them even after they failed to execute a sale deed in favor of the respondent and others in terms of the agreement for sale dated 27.06.2022. The petitioner No. 1 being the father of the petitioner No. 2 is the main person behind the scene as he is the master mind in defrauding the respondent and others. Further, the notice dated 01.06.2023 sent by the petitioners’ counsel to the respondent shows that “mensrea” involved in part of the petitioners. 20. Mr. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the learned Court below has rightly took cognizance of the offence finding a prima facie case vide order dated 12.06.2023 in C.R.Case No.573/2023. Further, the notice dated 01.06.2023 sent by the petitioners’ counsel to the respondent shows that “mensrea” involved in part of the petitioners. 20. Mr. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the learned Court below has rightly took cognizance of the offence finding a prima facie case vide order dated 12.06.2023 in C.R.Case No.573/2023. The facts pleaded along with initial depositions of the complainant and the documents annexed disclosed a “prima facie” case showing enough materials against the petitioners and co-accused persons for trial which cannot be put to test in a criminal petition invoking powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 21. The learned Court below took cognizance of the offence without making any enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, which is also not required if a prima facie satisfactionis recorded by the learned Court below only on the basis of the complaint petition as well as on the statement made by the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Moreso, the complainant filed a complaint case in the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court whereby, the accused persons resides i.e., within the district of Nagaon, Assam and hence, the learned Court below rightly took cognizance after examining the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and as such, there is no infirmity in the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned Court SDJM (S), Nagaon. 22. Further, it is submitted by Mr. Chakravorty, learned counsel for the respondent that the facts pleaded in the present petition are disputed questions of facts which has to be dealt with during the trial of the case and those cannot be decided while dealing with the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Further, it is submitted that it is an admittedposition that the petitioners including other accused person accepted Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) as an advanced money in regard to the plot of land measuring 18 lessasin total vide agreement for sale No. 2080. 23. He further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner No. 1 is the father of the petitioner No. 2.The respondent entered into an agreement with the petitioner No. 1along with one Mukul Das to purchase a plot of land measuring 18 lessas considering the amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-two lakhs). Out of which, the respondent paid an advance of Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-two lakhs). Out of which, the respondent paid an advance of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) to the petitioners and one Mukul Das and further agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakhs) after permission of the sale is obtained in the said agreement. It is submitted by the petitioner and the said Mukul Das that the land is free from all encumbrances and based on the assurance of the petitioners, the respondent along with his brothers waited for long 3(three) months to get the permission for sale order. In the month of December, 2022, when the respondent went to Circle Office, Nagaon to enquire about the status of the land, to their utter shock and surprisedthey found one objection from one Biswajit Saha in respect of transferring of the land. Thereafter, when the respondent approached the petitioners, they admitted their fault and considering the fact that the land was not free from encumbrances, requested the respondent to wait till April, 2023. But they failed to keep their promise to the respondent and they threatened him and refuse to sell the aforesaid land. Thereafter, on 01.06.2023, the petitioner No. 2 issued a notice to the respondent with the allegations that agreement for sale dated 29.06.2022 is vitiated with fraud and it was executed and registered with dishonest mala fide intention and the respondent allegedly tried to compel the petitioners to sell the land in question at a lower price. 24. Thereafter, the petitioner instead of cancelling the agreement for sale and returning the entire advance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakh), deciding to return the money of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) and thereafter, it has come to knowledge of the respondent that one Title Suit being T.S. No. 14/2022 is also pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Nagaon between Mukul Das and Biswajit Saha over the aforesaid plot of land. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that this is not at all a fit case wherein, the criminal proceeding as well as the order of cognizance can be set aside and quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 25. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case record and other relevant documents annexed along with the petition. 26. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and I have also perused the case record and other relevant documents annexed along with the petition. 26. It is an admitted fact that the sale deed was executed by the petitioner No. 2 and one Mukul Das to sale a plot of land measuring 18 lessas of land and sale consideration amount was fixed for 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-two lakhs) and out of which, Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) has been paid in advance and the petitioner along with the said Mukul Das also assured to get the permission for sale of the land from the concerned authority. It is seen that even after lapse of several months, the petitioners and the said Mukul Das could not obtain sale permission and on enquiry by the respondent it has come to his notice that the entire agreement for sale was executed with one Biswajit Saha and in that context, one civil case is pending between the said Mukul Das and Biswajit Saha. However, it is the case of the petitioner that the plot of land is owned and possessed by the petitioner No. 2 which is free from encumbrances and rest of the part of the land is not free from encumbrances which belongs to one Mukul Das but it is seen that the permission was supposed to be obtained for entire 18 lessas of land and for which, the respondent has already paid Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakh) in advanced out of total consideration of sale amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-two lakhs). 27. As per the petitioners, they were not aware of the fact of the execution that another sale agreement was between Biswajit Saha and the said Mukul Das and the petitioners agreed to return the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) though they did not cancel the sale agreement which was executed in favor of the respondent. The petitioners may not have proper knowledge about the execution of another agreement for sale with one Biswajit Saha by the co-owner the said Mukul Das but it was assured by both the petitioners as well as by the said Mukul Das that land is free from encumbrances and they were supposed to get the sale permission from the authority concerned. The matter was not disclosed to the respondent till he came to know about the fact after making an enquiry into Circle Office, Nagaon. 28. It is also seen that the petitioners thereafter issued a legal notice to the respondent alleging that the respondent has pressurized the petitioners to sale the land in question at a lower price. However, they decided to return the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) to the respondent but did not make any statement in regards to cancellation of agreement for sale dated 29.06.2022. Though, the petitioners along with one Mukul Das took an advanced money for Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs) from the respondent suppressing the fact that land is free from encumbrances and assured the respondent that they will apply for sale permission from the concerned authority. 29. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 is no way connected in the alleged offence, neither he is the owner of the land nor he was party to the agreement for sale but as per the respondent, the petitioner No. 1 is the main person under whom the petitioner No. 2 & one Mukul Das have executed sale agreement suppressing the fact that land was not free from encumbrances and as per the respondent he is the main culprit behind the entire agreement. 30. On perusal of the order passed by the learned Court below, it is seen that before passing the order the Officer had recorded the statement of the complainant in detail and thereafter, finding a prima facie case on the basis of complaint as well as the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out against the accused/petitioners namely Narayan Paul (petitioner No. 1), Bitan Paul (petitioner No. 2) and one Mukul Das under Section 420/506/34 IPC and accordingly, the cognizance has been taken and summons/process was issued to the petitioners along with one Mukul Das. Thus, it is seen that the process was issued against the present petitioners after on being satisfied by the learned SDJM (S), Nagaon in C.R. Case No. 573/2023. 31. It is a fact that the learned Court below did not make any enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and issued the process as satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the present accused/petitioners. 31. It is a fact that the learned Court below did not make any enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and issued the process as satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the present accused/petitioners. There is limited scope for enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and if the Court is satisfied that there is a prima facie case on perusal of the complaint as well as recording the statement of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. It is not a case as Magistrate passed an order issuing process in mechanical manner or just in routine manner but the process was issued/cognizance was taken only after primary satisfaction that there is a prima facie case against the present petitioners and one Mukul Das under Section 420/506/34 IPC. The Court is not supposed to make a full trial or enquiry at the stage of 202/200 of Cr.P.C and only requirement is that the prima facie satisfaction of the Court concerned before issuing the process against the accused persons. 32. The Apex Court in case of State of Haryana &Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal &Ors. reported in 1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 has held as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 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 entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. 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 entirety 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 F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Where the uncontroverted 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 F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. 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." 33. But herein in the instant case, it is seen that on plain reading of the complaint petition as well as from the statement made by the complaint, there found a prima facie case against the accused/petitioners along with one Mukul Das and the allegations made in the FIR also cannot be considered as 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/petitioners. 34. 34. Moreso, the present petitioners will get a chance to take their defence at the time of framing of charge as well as to rebut the case of the complainant by cross-examining the PWs but, at this stage this Court is of opinion that there is no reason to make any interference in the order passed by the learned Court below taking cognizance against the present petitioners along with one Mukul Das vide order dated 12.06.2023 in C.R. Case No. 573/2023 by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 35. In view of above and also considering all aspects of the case, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceeding, pending in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Nagaon in C.R. Case No. 573/2023 against the present petitioners and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.