The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure of settlement agreements to fructify can lead to the debt becoming legally enforceable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. All these petitions involve identical questions on law and facts and hence, they are decided by this common judgment.

2. By way of these petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners, original accused, have challenged the orders passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot below application Exhibit-1 dated 16.03.2019 in the Criminal Cases instituted by the respondent-original complainant, which came to be confirmed by the orders passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot dated 26.02.2020 in the Criminal Revision Applications filed by the petitioners-original accused.

3. The petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020 are the same; whereas, the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4981 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5108 of 2020 is also same and happens to be the Wife of the petitioner in the earlier two petitions. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020, the issue relates to two disputed cheques worth Rs. 42.50 Lacs each whereas, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 4981 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5108 of 2020, the disputed cheques are worth Rs. 37.50 Lacs each. For the aforesaid four cheques, four different complaints came to be filed, the details of which are shown in a tabular form hereunder:

4. In Criminal Misc. Application No. 5108 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 4981 of 2020, the facts are that petitioner-Nilamben Dilipbhai Sejpal, who is the wife of Dilipbhai Keshavlal Sejpal, viz. the petitioner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5010 of 2020 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 5126 of 2020, had executed a registered Agreement to Sell dated 11.08.2015 in respect of a residential property constructed over non-agricultural land ad-measuring 72.32 square metres situated on southern side of Plot No. 35 paiki of Revenue Survey Nos.92 and 93 paiki of Village: Raiya with the respondents-Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara and Sunil Vrujlal Shah after accepting earnest money of Rs. 5 Lacs and had also accepted Rs. 75 Lacs on the same day. However, as petitioner-Nilamben Dilipbhai Sejpal had failed to act in terms of the said agreement, the Agreement to Sell dated 11.08.2015 was cancelled by executing a registered Cancellation of Agreement to Sell document dated 20.02.2018 and also executed a document for Cancellation of part payment of consideration amount. In pursuance thereof, petitioner- Nilamben Dilipbhai Sejpal issued three cheques viz. (i) No. 407980 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 5 Lacs in joint names of respondents-Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara and Sunil Vrujlal Shah (ii) No. 407978 dated 12.01.2019 for Rs. 37.50 Lacs in favour of respondent- Mohanbhai Kurjibhai Chaniyara and (iii) No. 407979 dated 12.01.2019 of Rs. 37.50 Lacs in favour of respondent-Sunilbhai Vrujlal Shah. When the aforesaid cheques were deposited in the Bank, the same were returned with the endorsement of “Funds Insufficient” on 21.02.2019. The respondents issued statutory demand Notice dated 22.02.2019 to the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act wherein, the respo