http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

                                         NON-REPORTABLE

         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

                        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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

                        ................................. J.                          (TARUN CHATTERJEE)

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

                    4