Criminal Misc. No. M-35059 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-35059 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.02.2010 Man Singh son of Sh. Dila Ram, r/o Mohalla Mishrani Ki Dharamshala, Sadhaura, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Haryana. 2. Smt. Mewa Rani wife of Sh. Ramesh Chand and d/o Sh. Amar Nath. 3. Ramesh Chand s/o not known (Husband of accused No. 2), residents of Mohalla Maniaran, Sadhaura, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order dated 15.02.08, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, and the order dated 13.03.07, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, vide which, respondents No. 2 and 3, were discharged, for the offences, punishable under Sections 420 and 477 read with Section 34 IPC, has been filed by the petitioner. Criminal Misc. No. M-35059 of 2009 2 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Man Singh, petitioner, is a co- owner of M/s Chauhan Khandsari Udyog (Poultry Unit), spreading over an area of 9 kanals 14 marlas, where he and his brothers, are running a poultry farm. It was stated that Mewa Rani, accused/respondent No. 2, executed an agreement dated 13.02.93, to purchase the aforesaid property, for a consideration of Rs. 18,66,000/-. It was further stated that, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, Mewa Rani, was required to pay a sum of Rs. 4,90,000/-, in cash, to the vendors, whereas, the loan, on the poultry farm, amounting to Rs. 13,26,000/-, was to be written off by her, by pledging her property with Allahabd Bank at Sadhaura, on or before 31.08.93. It was further stated that a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, payable to Ms. Ritu Rani, daughter of the accused, was to be adjusted towards the sale consideration. It was further stated that the sale deed was agreed to be executed, on 31.08.93. It was further stated that Mewa Rani, accused, issued a cheque bearing No. 284391 dated 13.02.93, in favour of the complainant, for a sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs and another cheque bearing No. 283392 of an equal amount, in favour of his (complainant's) co-owner Diwan Singh. It was further stated that another cheque bearing No. 283393 dated 12.02.93, in the sum of Rs. 1.5 lacs, issued, in favour of Ram Gopal, the third co- owner of the poultry farm, was retained by Mewa Rani, on the assurance to deliver the same, on the following day, but she did not do so. It was further stated that, it was also agreed to, by Mewa Rani, that she would pay the remaining amount of Rs. 1,90,000/-, in cash, Criminal Misc. No. M-35059 of 2009 3 before the Sub-Registrar, at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, in her favour. It was further stated that the aforesaid cheques, were presented, before the banker for their encashment, but to no avail, as Mewa Rani, stopped payment thereof, with malafide intention. It was further stated that a notice was got issued by Mewa Rani, to the complainant and his partners, stating therein, that the original agreement, in her possession, had been destroyed. It was further stated that the owners of the poultry farm, always remained ready and willing to perform their own part of the contract, but, the respondents, failed to do so. It was further stated that the respondents, instead of performing their own part of the contract, destroyed the valuable security i.e. the agreement to sell dated 13.02.93. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court, summoned the accused, for the offences, punishable under Sections 420 and 477 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. However, after recording the pre-charge evidence, the trial Court, dismissed the complaint and discharged the accused. 5. Feeling aggrieved, a revision-petition, was filed by the complainant, which was also dismissed, by the Court of Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide judgement dated 15.02.08. 6. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant petition, has been filed by the petitioner. 7. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. Criminal Misc. No. M-35059 of 2009 4 8. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Courts below, were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused/respondents, did not commit any offence. He further submitted that the Courts below, were also wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the agreement to sell, did not constitute a valuable security, and, as such, the alleged destruction thereof, did not constitute the offence, punishable under Section 477 IPC. He further submitted that the Courts below, were also wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that the dispute, between the parties, was only of civil nature and did not involve an element of criminal nature. He further submitted that the Courts below, were also wrong, in coming to the conclusion that, no offence, punishable under Section 420 IPC, was made out. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. The dispute, was with regard to the agreement to sell dated 13.02.93. Two Civil Suits, in respect of the said agreement to sell, have already been filed. The agreement to sell, was not produced, in the Court, which, according to the petitioner, was destroyed, by the accused, and, thus, they committed the offence, punishable under Section 477 IPC. The Courts below, were right, in holding, that term 'valuable security', applies to the original document, and not to a copy thereof. During the course of cross-examination, N.C. Mittal, Advocate, CW4, admitted that the Criminal Misc. No. M-35059 of 2009 5 agreement to sell, was cancelled, after compromise, meaning thereby, that the same, was no more operative, between the parties. A cancelled instrument cannot constitute a valuable security. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law, that the agreement to sell, does not create any right and interest, in the immovable property. On the basis of the agreement to sell, legal right of the complainant, in the property, was not at all extinguished. In these circumstances, the Courts below, were right, in holding that the dispute was of civil nature. The Courts below were also right in coming to the conclusion that the evidence, on record, even if went unrebutted could not lead to the conviction of the accused. They were, thus, right in discharging them. The orders impugned, rendered by the Courts below, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court. The same are liable to be upheld. 10. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-35059 of 2009, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed. Any observation, made in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 11. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned. 18.02.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE