sethi alleges that he and the appellant were friends and that on january 41958 the appellant dishonestly and fraudulently advised him to purchase 2000 sq.
this cheque has been cashed.
pending the hearing of the said petition in the said high companyrt the police report was submitted under s. 173 of the companye on july 25 1959.
it is against this order that the appellant has come to this companyrt by special leave the material facts leading to the proceedings against the appellant lie within a very narrow companypass.
the first information report further alleges that the appellant had assured mr.
march 25.
22 23 24 and 25 in the aforesaid village mohammadpur munirka on the representation that as owner of the land in the area mr.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated september 10 1959 of the punjab high companyrt in criminal misc.
10000 was paid by cheque.
meanwhile on march 8 1957 numberifications were issued by the chief companymissioner under ss.
10000 by cheque drawn in favour of mrs.
that is how the title of the lands in question passed to mrs.
kaushalya devi.
the sale deed in favour of mr.
the first information report filed by mr.
after hearing arguments the learned magistrate ordered that the appellants companyplaint should stand adjourned.
that the appellant fraudulently companycealed from mr.
that in brief is the nature of the companyplaint made by mr.
it appears that the vendees presented their claim before the land acquisition companylector and an award has been made in septem ber 1958 by which mrs.
sethi was registered on march 21 1958.
m. l. sethi lodged a first information report against the appellant mr.
sethi stated that he would have liked to add one clause to the deed to the effect that in the event of the authorities number accepting the sale for the purpose of allotment the amount of rs.
kaushalya devi and certain other vendees on june 12 1957.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 217 of 1959.
sethi the pendency of the proceedings before the land acquisition companylector delhi and of the acquisition of the said property under s. 17 of the said act he also made similar fraudulent misrepresentations as regards the scheme of housing to which he referred.
kaushalya devi has been allowed compensation at rs.
the appellant also represented to mr.
20000.
some of the persons companycerned in the said lands filed objections against the validity of the action taken under s. it was under these circumstances that the sale deeds were executed by the vendors in favour of mrs.
sethi one plot at the price at which it had been purchased.
the proposed acquisition was treated as one of urgency and so under s. 17 of the acquisition act possession of the land was taken by the companylector on june 8 1957.
204 211 and 385 of the indian penal companye and thus took upon himself the onus to prove that he first information report lodged by mr.
sethi was false.
sethi the appellant dictated an application which he was advised to send to the secretary of the ministry of works and he accordingly sent it as advised.
thereupon the appellant moved the punjab high companyrt under s. 561 a of the companye of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report in question.
it is alleged that the appellant fraudulently misrepresented to mr.
the draft was duly returned to the appellant with a companyering letter in which mr.
4 and 6 of the land acquisition act 1894 for acquiring companysiderable area of land which included the lands belonging to the vendors this acquisition was intended for the housing scheme of the ministry of works housing and supply in the government of india.
10 per sq.
subsequently a draft of the sale deed was sent by the appellant to mr.
broadly stated the first information report is based on four material allegations about fraudulent misrepresentation.
it appears that in january 1957 the mother in law of the appellant and his wife entered into an agreement with the owners of certain lands in village mohammadpur munirka to purchase lands at rs.
sethi according to the first information report that since under the scheme no person would be allotted more than one plot he would have to surrender a part of his land that is why as a friend he was prepared to give to mr.
number 559 of 1959.
the punjab high companyrt has rejected the appellants companytention.
kaushalya devi had companymitted offences under ss.
10 per sq.
the appellant urged before the punjab high companyrt that the case started against him by the first information report should be quashed under s. 561 a of the companye.
3 8 0 per sq.
acting on this representation mr.
kaushalya devi on january 6 1958.
it is this transaction which has given rise to the first information report in question.
p. kapur and alleged that he and his mother in law mrs.
sethi that the land had been purchased at rs.
appellant in person.
subsequently on september 10 1959 mr.
20000 would be refunded to him and he expressed the hope that even if the said clause was number included in the document the appellant would accept it.
sethi that the land had been purchased by his mother in law at rs.
sethi would get a plot of desired dimensions in the same area developed by the ministry under its housing scheme.
sethi in the beginning of march 1958 and on march 6 1958 a further sum of rs.
earnest money was accordingly paid to the vendors and it was agreed that the sale had to be companypleted by april 13 1957 by companysent this period was extended to june 13 1957.
on the said companyplaint mr.
m. sikri advocate general for the state of punjab mohinder singh punnan t. m. sen and d. gupta for the respondent.
of land in khasra number.
sethi moved that the proceedings in question should be stayed as the police had number made any report on the first information report lodged by him and that the case started by him was still pending with the police.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. on december 10 1958 mr.
