Pritam Singh Safeer, J.
1. This petition has been filed to urge that the proceedings against the petitioners arising out of the complaint filed by the respondents under the date 11th May, 1970, be quashed. A certified copy of the said complaint has been placed on the record. I have gone through the complaint. The respondents, according to the allegations in the complaint, had given the machinery detailed in paragraph 3 on hire to accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated in the complaint that accused No. 3, Shri T, C. Gandhi, who was a financier, started the paying of Installments to the respondents and acted as if he was the agent of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is not disclosed as to in what circumstances the respondents accepted accused No. 3 as the agent duly acting on behalf of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is clear that the respondents had never entered into any hire-purchase agreement with accused No. 3.
2. An agreement is a bilateral document and binds the parties to it. It is not stated in the complaint that there was any agreement between the respondents and accused No. 3 Shri T. C. Gandhi, by which he may have been bounds In paragraph 6 of the complaint it is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 made repeated defaults in paying the Installments and charges and ultimately accused No. 3, who was acting as agent for them, gave on sublease the machinery to the present petitioners. It passes comprehension as to why no steps were taken by the respondents when any sub-lease was allegedly given by accused No. 3 to the petitioners, because on the averments contained in the complaint it is not disclosed that the said Shri T. C. Gandhi had any authority whatsoever to create a sub-lease. No criminal act is ascribed to the petitioners except that the allegation made against them is that they instigated the commission of the offences made punishable in terms of Sections 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
Abetment is defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. A person would be abetting the doing of a thing if he does any of the acts covered by the definition. No positive allegation is there in the complaint that the petitioners did any particular act which may be inferred by any interpretation as an act of abetment. The complaint per se does not disclose any case for which the petitioners may deserve to-be tried. It is urged that the agreement as executed between the respondents and accused Nos. 1 and 2 contains an arbitration clause. In case of any breach of any of the terms of the agreement the parties can resort to that arbitration Clause 1 would not at this stage make any observation because I am dealing with a petition moved only by the petitioners who are Shri Madan N. Behl and Shri B. N. Shaha. I do not find any justification for their being tried for any illusory abetment. Specific allegations ought to be there in order to attract the application of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Having that view, the proceedings arising out of the com-1 plaint, mentioned above, as far as the same are concerned with the petitioners, are hereby quashed.