SUBHASH CHINTAMAN PATIL Vs. SUMER SINGH N CHAMPAWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned advocate appearing for the applicant. These are the applications filed under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant filed four separate complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. According to the case made out by the applicant in the complaints, the cheques were issued by the respondent-accused in discharge of liability of the payment of certain amounts under the memorandum of understanding dated 16th August 2005. Under the said memorandum of understanding, the members of the family of the applicant agreed to sell certain immovable property in favour of the accused. The finding recorded by the learned trial Judge is that the amount payable under the dishonoured cheques had not become payable under the terms and conditions of the memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding provides that the price of Rs.04,10,89,776/- was agreed which was to be paid as provided in clause (1) thereof. A sum of Rs.6 lacs was paid prior to the execution o the memorandum. The first instalment of Rs.01,99,44,888/- being 50% of the consideration amount after deducting token amount of Rs.6 lacs was payable within one month from the date of execution of the memorandum of understanding but subject to clear and marketable title of the property as well as only after releasing the said property from the clutches of ULC Authority as well as the State Government. The learned Judge found that the said 50% amount had not become payable as the property was not released by the State Government as well as by the ULC Authorities.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the evidence on record shows that the accused had taken over the responsibility of procuring necessary clearances and had accordingly made applications in that behalf. He submitted that very fact that a sum of Rs.32 lacs over and above the initial payment of Rs.6 lacs was paid by the accused shows that the parties never intended to act upon sub-clause (b) of clause (1) of the memorandum of understanding dated 16th August 2005.

(3.) THEREFORE, the view taken by the learned trial Judge that the amount payable under the cheques subject matter of these complaints had not become payable on the date on which the same were dishonoured is certainly a reasonable and possible view which could have been taken on the basis of material on record.