Inder Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief :-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this misc. petition may be allowed and the impugned order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jodhpur metro in original criminal case No.1779/2011 Jaideep Singh Vs. Inder Singh may be quashed and set aside."

Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that an agricultural land situated in Khasra No.162 measuring 72 bigha 11 biswa was registered in the name of Shri Heera Ram alias Heer Singh, father of the petitioner. On 05.09.1995 an agreement was arrived at with the non-petitioner, during the lifetime of Late Heera Ram, intending to sell the said land. Subsequently after death of Shri Heera Ram, both the parties decided to cancel the said agreement dated 05.09.1995, and for that purpose, a cancellation deed was executed between both the parties on 14.08.2010. The said cancellation deed was on the condition that the amount received as consideration towards sale of the land under agreement dated 05.09.1995 shall be made good by the present petitioner.

The bone of contention in the present case is that the petitioner wants that one letter dated 14.10.2010, in original, may be exhibited by the respondent, which prayer has been declined by the learned court below vide the impugned order dated 29.11.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the letter dated 14.10.2010 has been accepted by the respondent, and therefore, at this stage, refusing to bring the said letter on record by the respondent would jeopardize the petitioner's chance to prove that there was no enforceable debt for seeking trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the photo-copy of the letter dated 14.10.2010 and also the reply thereto given by the respondent on 23.11.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has harped upon the fact that original copy of the letter dated 14.10.2010 was relevant and if brought on record by the respondent it shall help the petitioner to demolish the respondent's claim of enforceable deed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, justified the impugned order on the ground that photo copy of the letter dated 14.10.2010 is already on record, and once the petitioner has failed to make any cross-examination from the respondents regarding the letter dated 14.10.2010 or its relevance then, at this stage, permitting the summoning of the said letter on record would be nothing, but delaying the trial. It is also contended that the author of the letter dated 14.10.2010 is the petitioner himself, and in case he wants to prove the same, then he has ample opportunity to do so during course of the trial.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that impugned order is well justified as the letter dated 14.10.2010 was never even whispered about in the cross-examination of the respondent by the petitioner. The petitioner himself is the author of the letter dated 14.10.2010 and in case he has to establish any fact relating to it, he may do so in accordance with law. This Court has also seen that the photo-copy of the said letter is already on record and the denial of the respondent that the same letter is with him is also on record.

In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference, at this stage, is called for in the present misc. petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, photo-copy of the letter in question, which is already on record may be dealt with by the learned court below, strictly in accordance with law.