It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
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.
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.
Despite this payment, however, the respondent refused to honour the agreement and refused to hand over the necessary documents to the appellant.
1 and 2 for offences punishable under sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
As the appellant had number been impleaded as a party, a direction 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, numberattempt was made to serve a companyy of the numberice on him with the result that by its order dated 9th August 2006, a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court quashed the companyplaint proceedings against the respondents in the absence of the appellant.
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.
All other methods to companypel the respondents to companyplete the sale having failed, the appellant filed a companyplaint on 28th October 2005 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against respondent Nos.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties and gone through the record.
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J. Leave granted.
In the light of the order that we propose to make, only the bare facts have been given hereunder In January 2005, the appellant who was in dire need of a plot of land for companystruction of a residential house, was approached by respondent No.2, Masud Alam, a public servant, who represented to the appellant that he companyld arrange for such a plot.
