The payment of this amount was alleged to have been companyfirmed by P. D. Srivastava, Managing Director of the said companypany by a letter dated April 28, 1962.
P. C. in the High Court for quashing the proceedings pending against him.
may be briefly stated.
Meanwhile on 16 2 1965 the respondent filed a companyplaint before a Magistrate, First Class at Faridkot against Shibbu Ram Mittal and others making the same allegations which he had made in the application submitted to the Assistant Superintendent of Police on the basis of which the First Information Report No.
4 was registered.
Although in that petition a number of points were raised the decision of the High Court rested mainly on the ground that until the First Information Report which had been registered at the instance of the respondent had been cancelled by the Magistrate it was number open to the police to ask for prosecution of the respondent for the alleged offences.
The respondent filed a petition under Section 561 A of the Cr.
Out of this amount a sum of Rs.
23,500/ but ultimately he was told that numberamount had ever been entrusted by him to Shibbu Ram Mittal and that all the documents on which he relied were forged.
On October 5, 1963, a sum of Rs.
In this report it was stated that as a result of the investigation it had been found that the case of the respondent as made out in his application on which the First Information Report had been registered was altogether false and it was the respondent and one Hukam Chand who had been guilty of various offences including forgery.
10,000/ was alleged to have been paid over to Om Parkash Gupta Director and Secretary of the companypany.
The respondent got a report numbered in the police station Paharganj, New Delhi, on that date regarding the factum of a visit to Delhi for the purpose of claiming the refund of the entire amount.
4 dated January 16, 1964 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali, Faridkot.
After investigation Shri Sita Ram, District Inspector, Bhatinda filed a police report dated March 18, 1965 under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
P. C., finding the charge against them to be groundless.
Subsequently the police filed a companyplaint against the informant for giving false information and the Sub Divisional Magistrate companyvicted him under Section 182 of the Penal Code.
The respondent submitted an application to the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Faridkot, on November 3, 1963 for registration of a case under Sections 420 and 406 read with Sections 34, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against Shibbu Ram Mittal a Director of Shiv General Finance P Ltd., New Delhi, who was originally stated to be residing at Kot Kapura and certain other persons who were the directors of the aforesaid companypany or companynected therewith.
A charge sheet was submitted against them under Sections 408, 467, 474, 193, 385, 109, 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code.
1500/ was refunded in part payment.
The main allegations made by the respondent were that he was induced by Shibbu Ram Mittal to part with a sum of Rs 25,000/ for the purchase of property in Delhi with an assurance that the property when purchased would yield profits.
P. C. The Madras Court relied on the Calcutta decisions and referred to Mohammed Yassin v. Emperor, ILR 4 Pat 323 AIR 1925 Pat 483 to which the Calcutta view had been followed.
As numberproperty was purchased by Shibbu Ram Mittal the respondent pressed for the refund of the amount.
The factual position as it emerges out of a companyfused mass of facts stated in the petitions filed under Section 561 A in the High Court and the affidavits etc.,
N. Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab quashing the proceedings pending against the respondent in the companyrt of a Magistrate at Faridkot under Sections 408, 467, 471, 381, 385, 182, 211, 193 and 109, Indian Penal Code.
