Mosiruddin Munshi Vs.
Md. Siraj & Ors.
 INSC 875 (9 May 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.852/2008 (arising out of SLP
(Crl) No. 2142/2007 Mosiruddin Munshi ......Appellant Md. Siraj & Ors.
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.
Pages: 1 2 3