JAGADISH RAI AGRWAL Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Alleging that petitioners having agreed to purchase Ac. 17-25 gts. of land in S. Nos. 246 and 247 of Kethireddipalli Village, at Rs. 2.31 lakhs per acre from them and paid an advance of Rs. 5.02 lakhs through two cheques, and that on 12-4-2003 1st petitioner gave a cheque dated 25-4-2003 for Rs. 35,69,375/- drawn on Tamilnadu Mercentile Bank Limited towards the balance amount due and payable as per the agreement, and agreed to take the sale deed within one week from 25-4-2003 at the expense of petitioners, and when the said cheque was presented for payment in Andhra Bank, Khairatabad, on 25-4-2003 by the second respondent, it was returned with an endorsement dated 28-5-2003 that payment was countermanded by the drawer and that in spite of a notice dated 5-5-2003 demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque being issued, petitioners failed to make payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque nor sent a reply, respondents 2 to 4 filed a private complaint against the petitioners for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act), which was taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate as C.C. No. 845 of 2003. This petition is filed to quash the said C.C.

(2.) . The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that since the dishonoured cheque was drawn by the first petitioner only and since there is nothing in the complaint to show as to how petitioners 2 to 4 are connected with the first petitioner and the bouncing of the cheque, and since the cheque was not given towards discharge of a legally enforceable 'debt' and since the statutory notice under Section 138,of the Act sent to them were received by the petitioners on 8-5-2003, and since the complaint was presented on 26-6-2003, the complaint is clearly barred by time and since respondents 3 and 4 are not either payees or holders in due course of the cheque, the complaint against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 is that since respondents 2 to 4, admittedly, are the joint owners of the property agreed to be sold to the petitioners as admitted by them in their notice dt. 30-4-2003, and since admittedly petitioners took possession of the land agreed to be sold by respondents 2 to 4, it is clear that the transaction of sale is almost complete except obtaining of a registered sale deed, and since the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque was given towards the balance sale consideration due and payable to respondents 2 to 4 from the petitioners under the agreement, since the word 'debt' is not defined in the Act, by giving a wider meaning to the word 'debt', it is to be taken that the dishonoured cheque was given towards a legally enforceable 'debt' i.e. the sale consideration due and payable to respondents 2 to 4 under the agreement of sale entered into by the petitioners. In support of his contention that the word 'debt' has to be given a wider meaning he relied on the following paragraphs in Union of India v. Raman Iron Foundry, AIR 1974 SC 1265 (para 7) :