9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m there being inherent contradictions in the various clauses, it is the defence of the petitioner that he has paid the entire sale consideration that these cheques were issued as the security cheques and that a Sale Deed had been duly executed in his favour on payment of the sale consideration. The respondent has denied the execution of Sale Deed and has claimed it to be a fabricated document produced by the Petitioner in his defence, which needs to be proved by him by way of evidence. In fact, the cross examination of the respondent got deferred for production of the Original sale Deed. It cannot be said that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, filed by the respondent No. 2, does not prima facie disclose the commission of an offence or that it is liable to be quashed - Pertinently, the Apex Court in the case of M.M.T.C Ltd. vs. Medchl Chemicals Pharma (P) Ltd. [ 2001 (11) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the burden of proving that there is no existing debt or liability on the respondents and merely on the basis of averments in the petition, the Court cannot conclude that there was no existing debt or liability in that regard. The petitioner has admitted the issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.3 Crores to the complainant and the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 4.75 Crores, was agreed to be paid within a period of six months from the date of execution of the Agreement to Sell. However, due to shortage of financial resources, Smt. Sindhu was unable to arrange the balance sale consideration. 6. Accordingly, she requested for an extension of time either to arrange funds, or in alternative, to arrange suitable buyers so as to avoid forfeiture of the earnest money to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The complainant appreciating the financial hardship of Smt. Sindhu, granted further extension of time. 7. The complainant further stated that in the year 2022, Smt. Sindhu, arranged two buyers, namely, one Mr. Ramalingu (Buyer No. 1) and the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Y.S. (Buyer No. 2), through one Mr. K Nanda Kumar, who expressed their interest to purchase the land for a sale consideration of Rs. 7.75 Crores. Mr. Ramalingu agreed to purchase eastern portion of the land admeasuring 2 acres and the petitioner/accused agreed to purchase the western portion of the agricultural land admeasuring 3 acres. The petitioner and Mr. Ramalingu paid Rs.6 Crores to the complainant as advance and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 138 of N.I Act filed by the respondent, was taken by the learned trial court/M.M. by its Order dated 06.09.2023 and the petitioner/accused was summoned. 14. The petitioner on being served with the summons, appeared before the trial court on 21.11.2023. Notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.PC, 1973 ) was framed on 21.11.2023 wherein the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 15. The Petitioner has contended that the complainant has been partly cross-examined by the petitioner on 07.02.2024 wherein he has reaffirmed that he had executed only one document on 12.05.2022, despite the fact that he had also executed a Sale Deed dated 12.05.2022 in favour of the petitioner No. 1, for sale consideration of Rs. 3.60 Crores. In the Sale Deed, it was clearly mentioned that nothing further is due from the petitioner to the complainant. So being the case, the petitioner desired to confront the complainant with the Sale Deed in original and since the original Sale Deed was not available, the matter had been adjourned to 23.03.2024, for further cross-examination. Thereafter, the matter has been listed on various dates for further cross-e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid to the complainant by him, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there is no liability on the part of the petitioner in view of Paragraph 3 of the Sale Deed, which records that the complainant/vender and confirming party, are acquitted and discharge of their liabilities to make any further payment. 20. The petitioner has further stated that it was only a dispute of Civil nature for which the institution of criminal proceedings, were not warranted and it has been done with the sole intent to harass him and to derive illegal enrichment from him. 21. Reliance has been placed on the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttaranchal, ((2013) 11 SCC 674), wherein the Apex Court has observed that the High Court must see that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature cloaked as criminal offence and in such cases, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law. Likewise, reliance has been placed on the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335), wherein it was also observed that if the complaint taken in entirety, does not disclose any prima facie case or make out any offence and hence No cri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arly reflects that the Sale Deed has been manipulated subsequently. Though, there is a mention of a Sale Deed in the Reply, but it is ambiguous and there is no clarity of the Sale Deed having been executed on 12.05.2022. In fact, if there was a Sale Deed executed as mentioned in Agreement to Sell, then there would not have been further stipulation of execution of an absolute Sale Deed on payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1.75 Crores, in the Agreement to Sell. 27. Admittedly, the petitioner has given the said cheques of Rs. 1.75 Crores, which is the balance, which remained of the sale consideration, after admitted payment of Rs.6 Crores. The petitioner now is taking up a plea of this being towards the security amount, the question of which does not arise because it is infact, the difference in sale consideration and there was no question of giving security cheques in advance. Pertinently, the date of 22.05.2023 had been filled in by the petitioner himself since he had undertaken to pay the balance amount after 12 months. The defence which is now being taken up by the petitioner, is a concocted story simply to wriggle out of his liability under the cheques. 28. Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he did not serve any Notice or stop the payment of these three cheques. 36. The petitioner in support of his contentions has placed on record an Agreement to Sell, which has the details of the Sale Deeds and also has placed on record a Sale Deed dated 12.05.2022. The perusal of these documents would show that while an Agreement to Sell was admittedly executed on 12.05.2022, there are inherent contradictions in the assertions made by the petitioner about the Sale Deed having been already executed; if the Sale Deed was already executed, there was no question of there being an Agreement to Sell. Rather from the perusal of these documents, aside from there being inherent contradictions in the various clauses, it is the defence of the petitioner that he has paid the entire sale consideration that these cheques were issued as the security cheques and that a Sale Deed had been duly executed in his favour on payment of the sale consideration. 37. The respondent has denied the execution of Sale Deed and has claimed it to be a fabricated document produced by the Petitioner in his defence, which needs to be proved by him by way of evidence. In fact, the cross examination of the respondent go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
