TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1083
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of Narasimhaiah, the property devolved on his sons, Ramaiah, Narayanasamy and Srinivasan. 2.2. During the life time of Narasimhaiah, he entered into sale agreement with JR Housing Developers Private Limited Company, Accused-1. Accused-2 is Jagadeeswara Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. JR Housing Developers Private Limited. The Complainant/Nagaraj is the Power of Attorney Agent of Narasimhaiah. After his death, he was the Power of Attorney agent to the legal heirs of Narasimhaiah. Nagaraj claims that he, as Power of Attorney Agent, spent Rs.16,00,000/- for developing the agricultural lands into housing plots. He also claims to have entered into sale agreement with the Accused. In the course of the business transactions, the Accused had issued a cheque for Rs.8,00,000/- to the Complainant. While entering into sale agreement, it was agreed that 30% of the gain to be shared with the Complainant/Nagaraj and 70% with the legal heirs of Narasimhaiah. The Accused-2 in S.T.C. No. 25 of 2011 claimed that he is running a firm by name Shivapriya Developers and he had already entered into developing arrangements with Narasimhaiah during his lifetime. Subsequent to the death of Narasimhaiah i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After completion of the Complainant evidence as P.W-1, the incriminating evidence available against him under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C were put to the Accused. The Accused denied the incriminating evidence. The Accused denied the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was ordered. In the trial, the Complainant examined himself as P.W-1 and marked six documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6. Ex.P-1 is the Power of Attorney deed, Ex.P-2 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.138 of 2007. Ex.P-3 is the cheque issued by the Accused bearing Cheque No.137135 dated 04.01.2011. Ex.P-4 is the return memo from the bank. Ex.P-5 is the legal notice issued on behalf of the Complainant to the Accused. Ex.P-6 is the reply notice on behalf of the Accused. The Accused-2 Jagadeeswara Reddy had examined himself as D.W-1. On behalf of the Accused, 19 documents were marked as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-19. Ex.D-1 is the confirmation deed dated 03.01.2011. Ex.D-2 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.138 of 2007. Ex.D-3 is the Conversion order. Ex.D-4 is the settlement agreement. Ex.D-5 is also settlement agreement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... confirmation deed under Ex.D-1 as well as the settlement agreement dated 30.10.2010 under Ex.D-4 entered into between the Complainant/Nagaraj, as Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the sons of late Narasimhaiah, namely Ramaiah, Narayanasamy and Srinivas, and the Respondent-2 Jagadeeswara Reddy. The party of the first part are the legal heirs of the late Narasimhaiah through their Power Agent Nagaraj the Complainant herein. The Party of the 2nd part is the Respondent-2 herein Jagadeeswara Reddy. The settlement agreement is with regard to the suit filed in O.S. No. 138 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hoskote, in respect of the land in S.No.145, New No. 145/1 measuring to an extent of one acre 17 guntas out of 2 acres 17 guntas, situated at Jinnagara village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, wherein it is stated as follows:- " ...upon the advice and intervention of well wishers and common friends the Parties of the first part and the Second Party have decided to amicably settle the dispute that arose between the parties in the above referred disputes. Whereas the parties of the first part do hereby declare that S.No.145 New No.145....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... enjoyment of the second party and buyers of sites formed on Survey No.145. The Parties of the first party duly represented by his GPA holder Sri Nagaraj have consented to be present and to report settlement before the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn) Hoskote along with legal heirs of Narasimhaiah and to execute and register documents before the Sub registrar and other authorities as prescribed and demanded by the second party in terms of above settlement on the day fixed by the parties herein." 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the suit in O.S. No. 138 of 2007 was filed by Nagaraj against Jagadeeswara Reddy for a bare injunction. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court while considering the complaint under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 had observed that there was no consideration passed on to the Accused and therefore, the defense of the Accused is accepted and erroneously acquitted the Accused. 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to page 7 of the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asimhaiah did not sign the deed was claimed by D.W-1 in his cross examination. The Voucher in favour of Nagaraj was not cancelled was admitted by him in cross examination. The relevant portion of cross-examination of D.W-1 is extracted as under : "காசோலை எண் 137137 ரூ.3 இலட்சம் ருபாய் பெயருக்கு கொடுத்து அதில் மஞ்சுநாத் பணம் தரப்பட்டுள்ளது என்றால் சரிதான். அது அவருக்கு கமிஷனாக கொடுக்கப்பட்ட தொகையாகும். அந்....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3006;ன் தான் மஞ்சுநாத்திடம் வழக்கு தாக்கல் செய்யுமாறு சொல்லிட்டு அவருக்கு தெரியாமல் பணம் செலுத்த வேண்டாம் என்று அறிவிப்பு கொடுத்தேன் என்றால் சரியல்ல. அதனால் தான் மஞ்சுநாத் அந்த தேதியில் வழக்கு போட&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;ுப்பதாக பணம் ஒப்புக்கொண்டேன் என்றால் சரியல்ல. மேலும் நாராயணசாமி மற்றும் சீனிவாசன் உறுதிப்பத்திரத்தில் கையொப்பம் செய்வதற்காக நான் அந்த ரூ.8 லட்சம் கொடுத்தேன் என்றால் சரியல்ல. மேலும் நாகராஜூக்கு....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#2970;ரியல்ல. நாகராஜுக்கு கொடுத்த காசோலைகளின் தேதி 4.1.2011 தான் அது நரசிம்மையாவினுடைய வாரிசுகளுக்காக வேண்டி நாகராஜூசுக்கு கொடுக்கப்பட்டதாகும். நரசிம்மையா நாகராஜூசக்கு பணம் வாரிசுகளுக்காகத்தான் கொடுகĮ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3007;யல்ல." 7. From the suggestion put to the Accused, it is found that the Accused had issued stop payment after making the Complainant believe to settle the case in which Nagaraj had obtained a decree in his favour on behalf of the Principal, the sons of Narasimhaiah. Thereby the Accused had contradicted himself by what he had stated in his reply notice. The learned Judge failed to consider the suggestions put to D.W-1 in cross-examination and therefore, the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court (Magisterial level), Hosur is perverse and is to be set aside. 8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the reported decision in the case of Lafarge Aggregates and Concrete India Pvt Ltd vs. Sukarsh Azad and another reported in (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 779 wherein it is held as follows:- "8. The object of bringing Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on statue appears to be to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transactions business of negotiable instruments. Despite several remedies, Section 138 of the Act is intended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of M.M.T.C Ltd and another vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd and another reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 234, wherein it is held as follows:- "Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, the respondent company issued two cheques, one dated 31-10-1994 and another dated 10-11-1994 in favour of the appellant company. Both the cheques when presented for payment were returned with the endorsement "payment stopped by drawer". After issuing notices, the appellant lodged two complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through one L, the manager of its regional office. The respondent filed two petitions for quashing of the said complaints. Allowing the petitions the High Court held that the complaints were not maintainable. The High Court further held that the Manager (who had lodged the complaints) and the Deputy General Manager (who was substituted) were merely paid employees of the appellant company and had not been authorised by the Board of Directors to sign and file the complaint on behalf of the Company or to prosecute the same. It further held that the authorisation in favour of the Deputy General Manager could not cure the defect. Since in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to know that the Accused had entered into development agreement with Narasimhaiah. Therefore, he had approached the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Hoskote seeking injunction against the Accused-2 as Defendant. The learned Principal Civil Judge, Hoskote had granted decree in favour of the Plaintiff/Nagaraj for the same property. Subsequent to the decree, they entered into compromise. In the light of the compromise, the Accused issued the cheque No.137135 for Rs.8,00,000/- and in the light of that settlement, confirmation deed was executed whereby the Complainant/Nagaraj stated to have assured the Accused that he will bring all the legal heirs of the Narasimhaiah to affix their signature on the confirmation deed. In the confirmation deed, the legal heirs of Narasimhaiah agreed to give up their rights over the property in favour of the Accused. On such promise, the Accused had issued cheque. As pointed out in the reported decision in the case of MMTC Ltd and another vs Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd and another reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 234, the cheque was returned on the ground that "payment stopped by the drawer" and it also falls within the Provisions of 13....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....development agreement between Narasimhaiah and the Accused in the name of Shivapriya. Also he admitted that while instituting the suit under Ex.P-2, O.S.No.138 of 2007, he had not impleaded the Company of the Defendant as proper and necessary party. Also he had admitted that he had received Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as advance during the time of his daughter's Marriage. He had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not furnished any document as claimed that 70% of the sale proceeds from the property is to be given to the sons of Narasimhaiah and 30% to the Power of Attorney agent, the Complainant/Nagaraj. He had admitted that during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.138 of 2007, he had made representation to the Defendant that they can enter into sale agreement and compromise the subject matter. He also admitted that he had received Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as advance sometime in October, 2010 and made representation to the Accused that he will bring all the legal heirs of the Narasimhaiah to sign the agreement. The suggestion that Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) was issued by the Accused only on the undertaking given by the Complainant ....