IMPORTANT POINT
Hyper technical approach should not be adopted.

JUDGMENT

C. NAGAPPAN, J. –

1. Leave granted. CRMP No.12896 of 2011 seeking impleadment as a party is dismissed.

2. This appeal is preferred against order dated June 29, 2010, passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRR No.1978 of 2006 in FIR No.251 dated 10.11.2005 on the file of Amherst Street Police Station registered for the alleged offences under Section 420/120B IPC including the order dated 28.10.2005 in case No.C/949 of 2005 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

3. Briefly the facts are as follows : The appellant herein/ complainant was looking for a plot of land for construction of residential house in January 2005 and accused No.2, Masud Alam, a public servant represented that he could arrange for the said plot and introduced the appellant to respondent No.1/accused No.1 who stated that he had a plot of land and the appellant believing the representation made by the accused No.2 entered into an agreement for sale with respondent No.1 herein/accused No.1 and also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,001/- in cash.

The respondent No.1 herein refused to hand over the necessary title documents to the appellant which led to issuance of legal notice by the appellant. All other methods to compel respondent No.1 to complete the sale having failed the appellant filed a complaint on 28.10.2005 in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against respondent No.1 herein/accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 420, read with Section 120B of the IPC. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the officer in-charge of the Amherst Street Police Station for causing investigation under Section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code by treating the complaint as First Information Report.

Respondent No.1 herein/accused No.1 filed application under Section 482 of Cr.PC for quashing the said proceedings including the FIR. Though the appellant herein/complainant was impleaded as a party no attempt was made to serve notice on him with the result that the learned single Judge of the High Court quashed the complaint proceedings in the absence of the appellant herein. Challenging the said order the appellant herein preferred appeal to this Court in Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2008 and this Court by judgment dated May 09, 2008 allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Thereafter the High Court heard both the parties and by impugned order dated June, 29, 2010 allowed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C and quashed the complaint proceedings. Aggrieved by the same the complainant has preferred the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the contents of the complaint would disclose the commission of the cognizable offences alleged and the High Court at the preliminary stage would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry and quashing the proceedings and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1/accused No.1 contended that the dispute involved in the complaint is of civil nature and none of the acts allegedly committed by the Respondent No.1 gave rise to any criminal liability as rightly held by the High Court. In support of the submission he relied on the following decisions of this Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs. State of Bihar and another (2000) 4 SCC 168, Murari Lal Gupta Vs. Gopi Singh (2005) 13 SCC 699 and Ram Biraji Devi and another Vs. Umesh Kumar Singh and another (2006) 6 SCC 669.

5. The legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for quashing the First Information Report is now well settled. It is not necessary for us to delve deep thereinto as the propositions of law have been stated by this Court in R. Kalyani Vs. Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516 in the following terms :

"15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are :

1) The High Court