Mosiruddin Munshi vs Md. Siraj & Ors

Mosiruddin Munshi ......Appellant

Vs.

Md. Siraj & Ors. .......Respondents

JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In the light of the order that we propose to make, only

the bare facts have been given hereunder:

3. In January 2005, the appellant who was in dire need of a

plot of land for construction of a residential house, was

approached by respondent No.2, Masud Alam, a public

servant, who represented to the appellant that he could

arrange for such a plot. Respondent No.2 thereupon

introduced the appellant to respondent No.1, who stated

that he had a plot of land which he was willing to sell.

1 The appellant believing the representation made by

respondent No.2 entered into an agreement for sale with

respondent No.1 and also paid a sum of Rupees five

lakhs and one in cash. Despite this payment, however,

the respondent refused to honour the agreement and

refused to hand over the necessary documents to the

appellant. All other methods to compel the respondents

to complete the sale having failed, the appellant filed a

complaint on 28th October 2005 before the Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for offences punishable under

sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code. The

Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Officer In-

charge of the Amherest Street, Police Station and

directed that it be treated as a FIR and investigated

under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

After protracted legal wranglings, respondent No.1 filed

an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for the quashing of the proceedings. As the

appellant had not been impleaded as a party, a direction

2 was issued by the High Court on 13th July 2006 to

respondent No.1 to implead the appellant as a party. It

appears, however, though the appellant was impleaded

as a party, no attempt was made to serve a copy of the

notice on him with the result that by its order dated 9th

August 2006, a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court

quashed the complaint proceedings against the

respondents in the absence of the appellant. It is against

this order that the present appeal has been filed.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

gone through the record. The broad facts stated above

have not been denied. It, therefore, stands

uncontroverted that the proceedings against the accused

respondents had been quashed without notice to the

appellant, who was the original complainant. We are,

therefore, of the opinion that the order of the learned

Single Judge impugned before us must be set aside and

we order accordingly. We also remit the case to the High

Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. The

appeal is accordingly allowed,

3 ................................. J.

(TARUN CHATTERJEE)

.................................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI) New Delhi, Dated: May 9, 2008

4