RIPUDAMAN SINGHversusBALKRISHNA

                         [2019] 5 S.C.R. 499                               499


                       RIPUDAMAN SINGH                                     A
                                   v.
                           BALKRISHNA
                  (Criminal Appeal No.483 of 2019)
                          MARCH 13, 2019                                   B

         [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           C
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 –           D
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      E
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           F
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        G
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.


                                                                           H
                                  499
500            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
C     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
D     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.
E            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,
F     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.
G
            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

H
               RIPUDAMAN SINGH v. BALKRISHNA                                  501
             [DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 and quashed the          A
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.         B
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      C
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             D
        Bank, Indore for an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty-
        five lacs only) favouring Smt. Usha.
      5. 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            E
unpaid with the remarks “Insufficient funds”. The second cheque dated
2 July 2013 was returned with the same remark by the banker, upon
deposit.
      6. After issuing legal notices dated 21 June 2013 and 13 August
2013, the appellants instituted complaints under Section 138 of the           F
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process was issued by the Judicial
Magistrate, First Class.
        7. The respondent filed two separate applications seeking discharge
in the respective complaint cases. Those applications were dismissed by
the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore on 3 September 2014. On 8        G
October 2014, charges were framed under Section 138.
      8. The respondent then filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC
before the High Court in which the impugned order has been passed.

1
    “CrPC”                                                                    H
502             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 5 S.C.R.


A     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
B           of the selling party and the payment of cheques would be after
            the resolution of the said disputes.”
             9. 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
C     as parties.
            10. 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 liability or debt but for the payment of balance
D     consideration. Holding that the respondent did not owe any money to
      the complainants, the complaint under Section 138 have been quashed.
             11. 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
E     appellants in both the cases, the respondent 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.
             12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
F     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.
G
             13. 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
H
              RIPUDAMAN SINGH v. BALKRISHNA                                      503
            [DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

pursuance of the agreement to sell. Though it is well settled that an            A
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.
                                                                                 B
        14. 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.                                                                      C

       15.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             D
basis of the evidence which may be adduced at the trial.
      16. 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.                                                     E

       17. 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.
       18. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.
       19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.              F


Devika Gujral                                            Appeals disposed of..



                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H