9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 995X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipuram and Tuvipuram, that the petitioner and his business partner Ganesha Kannan had started to interfere with the work of the respondent, that since the accused have agreed to pay the amount for the work done by the respondent, the respondent had relieved himself from the said work, that the respondent has then made demand for Rs.68,70,000/- for the work done by him, that since the payment was not made, he lodged a complaint before the police officials and that the petitioner and Ganesha Kannan have entered into a compromise with the respondent and on the basis of which, a compromise agreement was entered into between on the parties on 26.02.2018. It is the further case of the complainant that as per the said agreement dated 26.02.2018, the accused has agreed to pay Rs.35,00,000/-, that the petitioner has paid Rs.10,00,000/- and agreed to pay the remaining amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 23.03.2018, that the petitioner has issued a cheque bearing No.10125945, drawn on Federal Bank, Thoothukudi for Rs.25,00,000/- by dating the same as 23.03.2018, that on 21.03.2018, the accused have paid Rs.5,00,000/- towards part payment of the amount due by them and sought time till 02.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is for illegal consideration, then as a corollary, the same would not come within the purview of legally enforceable debt. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has misinterpreted the clauses in the agreement which clearly reflects and fixes the liabilities of the petitioner to the cheque, that the petitioner is a party to compromise agreement dated 22.02.2018, that he has signed the same and for the said agreement, the cheque in dispute was issued and that as per the agreement, the petitioner is bound to repay the cheque amount on or before 22.03.2018 and to get back the cheque on repayment. 8. As already pointed out, the complainant in his complaint has specifically alleged that while he was attending some road work in Levanchipuram and Tuvipuram, the petitioner and his business partner Ganesha Kannan had interfered with his work and that since the accused have agreed to pay the amount for the work done by the respondent, the respondent got himself relieved from the work. When the demand of the complainant to pay Rs.68,70,000/- for the work done by him was not complied with, he preferred a complaint before the police officials and that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Contract Act are: (1) an agreement or contract is void, if its purpose is the commission of an illegal act; (2) an agreement or contract is void, if it is expressly or impliedly prohibited by any law; (3) an agreement or contract is void, if its performance is not possible without disobedience of any law. 12. Section 23 of Indian Contract Act says that the consideration or object of the agreement is unlawful if it is fraudulent. To put it in other way, in order to bring the case within the purview of Section 23, it is necessary to show that the object of the contract or consideration of the agreement or the agreement itself is unlawful. In the case on hand, though the petitioner has alleged that the agreement is void and that the consideration is illegal, immoral and against public policy, he has not elaborated anything further. Moreover, whether the cheque allegedly issued in pursuance of the compromise agreement can be considered as the same was given for discharging the legally enforceable debt. 13. The learned Counsel for the respondent has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ripudaman Singh Vs. Balkrishna reported in 2019(3) CTC 733, and the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequence which would be within the contemplation of the drawer. The cheque, in other words, would in such an instance mature for presentation and, in substance and in effect, is towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. This precisely is the situation in the present case which would negate the submissions of the appellants." 17. In Sripati Singh (since deceased) through his Son Gaurav Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 1002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question whether the dishonour of cheque given as security would constitute the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, observed as follows: "16. A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. 'Security' in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. It is given, deposited or pledged to make certain the fulfilment of an obligation to which the parties to the transaction are bound. If in a transaction, a loan is advanced and the borrower agrees to repay the amount in a sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already pointed out, the petitioner himself has specifically stated in the quash petition that the cheque in dispute was given only as a security. If that be the case of the petitioner, then it cannot be stated that no offence is made out, since the cheque issued by him has been dishonoured. Even otherwise, the question whether the petitioner had issued the cheque in dispute as security, pursuant to the compromise agreement entered into between the parties and whether at the time when the cheque was presented, it was not for discharge of any debt or other liability cannot be gone into by this Court in these proceedings and the same can only be determined during the trial of the case. 19. At this juncture, it is necessary to quote the following passage of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S Womb Laboratories Pvt Ltd vs Vijay Ahuja reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 2086, which is extracted as under: "In our opinion, the High Court has muddled the entire issue. The averment in the complaint does indicate that the signed cheques were handed over by the accused to the complainant. The cheques were given by way of security, is a matter of defence. Further, it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
