RIPUDAMAN SINGH versus BALKRISHNA

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 13-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
499
RIPUDAMAN SINGH
v.
BALKRISHNA
(Criminal Appeal No.483 of 2019)
MARCH 13, 2019
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of
complaint – Appellants claiming to be owner of agricultural land
entered into an agreement to sell the land to the respondents and
received part payment in cash and remaining in cheques – Along
with the agreement to sell, appellants executed a General Power of
Attorney in favour of respondent – On presentation, cheques were
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds – Appellant issued legal
notice and thereafter instituted complaints under s.138 NI Act –
Respondent filed petition under s.482 for quashing of complaint –
High Court quashed the complaint holding that  cheques were not
issued for creating any liability or debt but for the payment of balance
consideration – Held: Admittedly, the cheques were issued under
and in pursuance of the agreement to sell – Though it is well settled
that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in immovable
property, it nonetheless constitutes a legally enforceable contract
between the parties to it – A payment made  pursuant to such an
agreement is a payment of a duly enforceable debt or liability for
the purposes of s.138 – Recourse to the jurisdiction of the High
Court under s.482 was a clear abuse of process – The question as
to whether there was a dispute as contemplated in the agreement to
dell which obviated the obligation of the purchaser to honor the
cheque which was furnished in pursuance of the agreement to sell
to the vendor, cannot be the subject matter of a proceeding under
s.482 and is a matter to be determined on the basis of the evidence
which may be adduced at the trial – The order passed by High
Court in petition under s.482 was unsustainable – Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138.
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 499
 499
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: The finding of the Single Judge of the High Court
is not sustainable that the cheques were not issued for creating
any liability or debt, but ‘only’ for the payment of balance
consideration and that in consequence, there was no legally
enforceable debt or other liability.  Admittedly, the cheques were
issued under and in pursuance of the agreement to sell.  Though
it is well settled that an agreement to sell does not create any
interest in immoveable property, it nonetheless constitutes a
legally enforceable contract between the parties to it.  A payment
which is made in pursuance of such an agreement is hence a
payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability
for the purposes of Section 138.  Moreover, acting on the General
Power of Attorney, the respondent entered into a subsequent
transaction on 3 August 2013.  Evidently that transaction was
after the legal notice dated 21 June 2013 and hence could not
have been adverted to in the legal notice. Recourse to the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 was a clear abuse
of process. [Paras 13, 14] [502-G-H; 503-A-C]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 483 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2016 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in M.C.R.C No. 356 of 2015
 With
Criminal Appeal No. 484 of 2019
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Santosh Kumar, Visushant Gupta,
Mushtaq Ahmad, Advs. for the Appellant.
Akshat Shrivastava, Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Advs. for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from a judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Bench at Indore dated 31
March 2016. The learned Single Judge has allowed a petition under
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
501
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 and quashed the
complaints instituted by the appellants under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
3. The appellants are spouses.  Claiming to be owners of certain
agricultural land they entered into an agreement to sell dated 28 May
2013 with the Respondent. The sale consideration was Rs. 1.75 crores.
The agreement records that an amount of Rs. 1.25 crores was paid in
cash and as for the balance, two post dated cheques were issued, each
in the amount of Rs 25 lakhs.
4. The cheques were issued by the respondent in favour of the
two appellants in the present appeals.  The details of the cheques are as
follo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.