1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 483 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4608 of 2016)
RIPUDAMAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BALKRISHNA Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4610 of 2016)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
Leave granted.
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 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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MANISH SETHI
Date: 2019.05.10
consideration was Rs. 1.75 crores. The agreement records that
12:22:38 IST
Reason:
an amount of Rs. 1.25 crores was paid in cash and as for the
1 �CrPC�
2
balance, two post dated cheques were issued, each in the amount
of Rs 25 lakhs.
The cheques were issued by the respondent in favour of
the two appellants in the present appeals. The details of the
cheques are as follows:
(i) Cheque No. 297251 dated 03.06.2013 drawn on
Indusind Bank, Indore for an amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lacs only)
favouring Ripudaman Singh;
(ii) Cheque No. 297252 dated 02.07.2013 drawn on
Indusind Bank, Indore for an amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lacs only)
favouring Smt. Usha.
Together with the agreement, the appellants executed a
General Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent. The
first of the two cheques was deposited for payment. On 18 June
2013 it was returned unpaid with the remarks �Insufficient
funds�. The second cheque dated 2 July 2013 was returned with
the same remark by the banker, upon deposit.
After issuing legal notices dated 21 June 2013 and 13
August 2013, the appellants instituted complaints under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued
by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
The respondent filed two separate applications seeking
discharge in the respective complaint cases. Those applications
were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore
3
on 3 September 2014. On 8 October 2014, charges were framed
under Section 138.
The respondent then filed a petition under Section 482
CrPC before the High Court in which the impugned order has been
passed. While allowing the petition, the High Court has
adverted to Clause 4 of the agreement between the parties which
is in the following terms:
�That on the above property of the seller there is
no family dispute of any type nor is any case
pending in the court. If due to any reason any
dispute arises then all its responsibility would
remain of the selling party and the payment of
cheques would be after the resolution of the said
disputes.�
The High Court held that a suit in respect of the land,
Civil Suit No. 4-A of 2012 is pending before the XIVth
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore since 2 September 2011 in
which the complainants are arraigned as parties.
On this basis, the High Court held that under the terms
of clause 4 of the agreement, the cheques could not have been
presented for payment. The cheques, according to the High
Court, have not been issued for creating any liablity or debt
but for the payment of balance consideration. Holding that the
respondent did not owe any money to the complainants, the
complaint under Section 138 have been quashed.
Assailing the judgment of the High Court, Mr. Shyam
Divan, learned senior counsel submits that as a matter of fact,
acting on the strength of the General Power of Attorney which
was issued by the appellants in both the cases, the respondent
4
entered into a sale transaction in respect of the same property
on 3 August 2013 for a total consideration of Rs. 3.79 crores.
Hence, it has been submitted that the order passed by the High
Court is manifestly misconceived.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent submitted that clause 4 of the agreement to sell
postulated that there was no dispute in respect of the land
which was the subject of the agreement to sell nor was there
any case pending before the Court. Moreover, it was stated
that if a dispute was to arise, it was the duty of the vendor
to get it resolved and the payment of cheques would be after
the resolution of the dispute.
We find ourselves unable to accept the finding of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court 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 encforceable
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 liablity for the
purposes of Section 138.
Moreover, acting on the General Power of Attorney, the
respondent entered into a subsequent transaction on 3 August
5
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.
The question as to whether there was a dispute as
contemplated in clause 4 of the Agreement to Sell 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
Section 482 and is a matter to be determined on the basis of
the evidence which may be adduced at the trial.
For these reasons, we are of the view that the order
passed by the High Court in the petition under Section 482 CrPC
was unsustainable. We allow the appeals and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court.
However, we clarify that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the issues which may arise during the
course of the trial.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.............................J.
(DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)
.............................J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
NEW DELHI
MARCH 13, 2019
6
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4608/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-03-2016
in MCRC No. 356/2015 passed by the High Court Of M.p At Indore)
RIPUDAMAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BALKRISHNA Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 4610/2016 (II-A)
Date : 13-03-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HONBLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Visushant Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR
Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 483 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4608 of 2016)
RIPUDAMAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BALKRISHNA Respondent(s)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 4610 of 2016)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.
Leave granted.
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 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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
MANISH SETHI
Date: 2019.05.10
consideration was Rs. 1.75 crores. The agreement records that
12:22:38 IST
Reason:
an amount of Rs. 1.25 crores was paid in cash and as for the
1 �CrPC�
2
balance, two post dated cheques were issued, each in the amount
of Rs 25 lakhs.
The cheques were issued by the respondent in favour of
the two appellants in the present appeals. The details of the
cheques are as follows:
(i) Cheque No. 297251 dated 03.06.2013 drawn on
Indusind Bank, Indore for an amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lacs only)
favouring Ripudaman Singh;
(ii) Cheque No. 297252 dated 02.07.2013 drawn on
Indusind Bank, Indore for an amount of Rs.
25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-five lacs only)
favouring Smt. Usha.
Together with the agreement, the appellants executed a
General Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent. The
first of the two cheques was deposited for payment. On 18 June
2013 it was returned unpaid with the remarks �Insufficient
funds�. The second cheque dated 2 July 2013 was returned with
the same remark by the banker, upon deposit.
After issuing legal notices dated 21 June 2013 and 13
August 2013, the appellants instituted complaints under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued
by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
The respondent filed two separate applications seeking
discharge in the respective complaint cases. Those applications
were dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore
3
on 3 September 2014. On 8 October 2014, charges were framed
under Section 138.
The respondent then filed a petition under Section 482
CrPC before the High Court in which the impugned order has been
passed. While allowing the petition, the High Court has
adverted to Clause 4 of the agreement between the parties which
is in the following terms:
�That on the above property of the seller there is
no family dispute of any type nor is any case
pending in the court. If due to any reason any
dispute arises then all its responsibility would
remain of the selling party and the payment of
cheques would be after the resolution of the said
disputes.�
The High Court held that a suit in respect of the land,
Civil Suit No. 4-A of 2012 is pending before the XIVth
Additional Sessions Judge, Indore since 2 September 2011 in
which the complainants are arraigned as parties.
On this basis, the High Court held that under the terms
of clause 4 of the agreement, the cheques could not have been
presented for payment. The cheques, according to the High
Court, have not been issued for creating any liablity or debt
but for the payment of balance consideration. Holding that the
respondent did not owe any money to the complainants, the
complaint under Section 138 have been quashed.
Assailing the judgment of the High Court, Mr. Shyam
Divan, learned senior counsel submits that as a matter of fact,
acting on the strength of the General Power of Attorney which
was issued by the appellants in both the cases, the respondent
4
entered into a sale transaction in respect of the same property
on 3 August 2013 for a total consideration of Rs. 3.79 crores.
Hence, it has been submitted that the order passed by the High
Court is manifestly misconceived.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent submitted that clause 4 of the agreement to sell
postulated that there was no dispute in respect of the land
which was the subject of the agreement to sell nor was there
any case pending before the Court. Moreover, it was stated
that if a dispute was to arise, it was the duty of the vendor
to get it resolved and the payment of cheques would be after
the resolution of the dispute.
We find ourselves unable to accept the finding of the
learned Single Judge of the High Court 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 encforceable
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 liablity for the
purposes of Section 138.
Moreover, acting on the General Power of Attorney, the
respondent entered into a subsequent transaction on 3 August
5
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.
The question as to whether there was a dispute as
contemplated in clause 4 of the Agreement to Sell 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
Section 482 and is a matter to be determined on the basis of
the evidence which may be adduced at the trial.
For these reasons, we are of the view that the order
passed by the High Court in the petition under Section 482 CrPC
was unsustainable. We allow the appeals and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the High Court.
However, we clarify that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the issues which may arise during the
course of the trial.
The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.............................J.
(DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD)
.............................J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
NEW DELHI
MARCH 13, 2019
6
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4608/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31-03-2016
in MCRC No. 356/2015 passed by the High Court Of M.p At Indore)
RIPUDAMAN SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BALKRISHNA Respondent(s)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 4610/2016 (II-A)
Date : 13-03-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HONBLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Visushant Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad, AOR
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR
Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(MANISH SETHI) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)
COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
