Crl.M..No.M-27356/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.M-.27356/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 16.9.2010. Ram Singh ....................Petitioner v. Chiman Singh and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.AK Khunger,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Prayer in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is for setting aside the order dated 19.1.2007 (P1) passed by learned SDJM, Muktsar, discharging the accused respondents of the charges under Sections 420/120-B IPC, as also for setting aside the order dated 6.10.2007 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the said order dated 19.1.2007 was dismissed. As per allegations made by the complainant/petitioner-Ram Singh, he had given a loan of Rs.1 lac on interest @ 2% per month, to respondent nos.3 and 4 namely Gurtej Singh and Malkit Singh. As security against the said loan, the respondents had entered into an agreement to sell dated 16.8.2000 with the complainant/petitioner. Crl.M..No.M-27356/2010(O&M) 2 The respondents had allegedly orally agreed to repay the loan by 31.10.2000 and the date for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 4.1.2001. It is further alleged by the complainant that when the respondents did not repay the loan, he made enquiry with regard to the land which was subject matter of the aforesaid agreement to sell date 16.8.2000 executed by the respondents. According to the petitioner as per enquiry made by him, the land was not cultivable and the value of the same was between Rs.35,000/- to 40,000/- per acre. It is grievance of the petitioner that at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.8.2000, respondents had told him that the value of the said land was Rs.1.39 lac per acre. Thus, according to the complainant, respondents had committed a fraud with him. Accordingly, he filed a complaint under Sections 420. 120-B IPC, against the respondents in the Court of learned SDJM, Muktsar, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.1.2007 (P1) and the revision filed against the same was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 6.10.2007 (P2). Hence the present petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below, while discharging the accused have miserably failed to consider the material evidence produced by the petitioner. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I find no merit in the submission. The learned trial Court while discharging the accused has Crl.M..No.M-27356/2010(O&M) 3 found that CW3 Tara Singh, who is none else but nephew of the petitioner/complainant, in his statement while appearing in the witness box did not corroborate the statement of the complainant. It was further noticed that it is admitted case of the complainant/petitioner that the agreement to sell was merely for the security purpose, but perusal of the same shows that it was scribed for 8 acres of agricultural land and as such Rs.1 lac was very petty amount for such a big chunk of agricultural land. It was further found by the learned trial Court that the complainant had deposed beyond his pleadings. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner has observed that if the real intention between the parties was to borrow/lend money then they could have resorted to execution of a pronote and not an agreement to sell. The agreement to sell was got scribed by the complainant from an Advocate, thus it was disbelieved that it was only scribed as a security against the loan of Rs.1 lac. It was further noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that even if the averments of the complainant that the value of the land was not more than Rs.35,000 to 40,000/- per acre are taken to be true, his money to the tune of Rs. 1 lac could have been easily secured, had he filed a suit for specific performance. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge was has rightly opined that the complainant/petitioner wanted to evade his liability cast upon him by the agreement to sell dated 16.8.2000. Crl.M..No.M-27356/2010(O&M) 4 In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I find no ground to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. For the reasons stated above, finding no merit in the present petition the same is hereby dismissed. 16.9.2010 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge