M.L. SETHI, ADVOCATE Vs. R.P. IRAPUR, I.C.S. AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-1965-1-27
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 13,1965

M.L. Sethi, Advocate Appellant
VERSUS
R.P. Irapur, I.C.S. And Another Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SHEO BILAS AND ANR. V. THE STATE [REFERRED TO]
DUJAI V. STATE AND ANR [REFERRED TO]
DAULAT RAM V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
BAYAJI APPAJI KOTE V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
BASIR UL HUQ VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL ON COMPLAINT OF DHIRENDRA NATH BERA [REFERRED TO]
HARI DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C.B. Capoor, J. - (1.)THIS application in revision by Sri M.L. Sethi is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge Saharanpur whereby an application in revision filed by the Petitioner against two orders of the learned A.D.M. (Judicial) dated 6.8.1965 and 5.10.1963 was dismissed.
(2.)IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced on behalf of the contestants the following facts had better be narrated. At One time the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 were friends. In the year 1958 Smt. Kaushilya Devi, the mother of the Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter to be referred as the Respondent) executed a registered sale deed in favour of the wife of the Petitioner in respect of two thousand squads of land in village Mohammadpur, Muniika, New Delhi, for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/ -. The consideration money was paid by two cheques dated 5.1.1958 and 5.3.1958. On 10.12.1958 the Petitioner lodged a report with the Inspector General of Police, Punjab at Chandigarh against the Respondent and his mother in law for offences Under Sections 420, 109, 114 and 120B, IPC. The main allegations made in the aforesaid report were that prior to the execution of the aforesaid sale deed the Respondent represented to the Petitioner that the aforesaid plot of land was purchased by the vendor at the same rate at which it was proposed to be sold and was actually sold by her to the wife of the Petitioner, that the Respondent also represented that a scheme had been approved by the Government whereunder the area was to be developed by Government in conformity with a planned lay out and that those persons who had already acquired plats in the area for bona fide construction of residence shall be allotted alternative plots in the same area when it had been properly laid out and developed. The aforesaid allegations according to the Petitioner were false to the knowledge of the Respondent. It was said that there was no such scheme as was alleged by the Respondent to have been approved by the Government, rather, the plot of land sold by the mother in law of the Respondent to the wife of the Petitioner had already been acquired by Government under the Land Acquisition Act and that Smt. Kaushilya Devi had purchased the aforesaid plot of land at Rs. 5/ - per square yard and not at Rs. 10/ - per square yard as represented. Investigation was taken into hand in puissance of the aforesaid report and the Respondent was arrested on 18.7.1959 and a charge sheet was submitted against him on 25th of July, 1959.
In respect of the vended land compensation under the Land Acquisition Act was awarded at the rate of Rs. 3/8/. - per square yard. It will have been noticed that the aforesaid plot of land was sold, for Rs. 20,000/ -and the vendee suffered a loss of Rs. 13000/ -. The Petitioner's contention was that as false representations were made by the Respondent and his mother in law they were liable to reimburse the aforesaid loss. The Petitioner had gone to the house of the Respondent's mother in law in order to recover the aforesaid loss and, according to the Respondent, had held out a threat that dire consequences will ensue and the Respondent will be got dismissed from, service if the aforesaid sum of Rs. 13000/ - was not paid to him.

(3.)ON 11.4.1959 a complaint was filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh for offences Under Sections 204, 211 and 383, IPC. The gravamen of the Respondent was that the report lodged by the Petitioner against him was false and had beep lodged with intent to injure his fair name and reputation and with a view to extort a sum of Rs. 13,000/ -. It was alleged that even prior to the lodging of the aforesaid report the Petitioner had held out a threat as indicated in the earlier portion of this judgment. Another allegation made in the complaint was that the Petitioner had secreted five documents from the officer who was investigating into the report lodged by him. It was said that if those documents had been produced before the Investigating Officer the falsity of the report would have been exposed. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the case, recorded the statement of the Respondent Under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and directed that process be issued to the Petitioner.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.