Consolidation of cheque-bounce complaints declined, but coordinated listing and time-bound disposal were directed to curb delay.

Absent any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for consolidation of criminal complaints, four cheque-bounce cases could not be tried as one proceeding; even on the assumed application of joint-trial rules, Section 219 would not permit all four offences to be tried together because it is limited to not more than three offences within one year. The request for a single consolidated trial was therefore declined. Given the long pendency of the complaints and the absence of recorded evidence, the Court granted only procedural relief by directing coordinated listing, day-to-day hearing and time-bound disposal of the cases.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the four cheque-bounce complaints could be consolidated and tried together; (ii) whether, in view of the single notice and the age of the complaints, the trial Court should be directed to fix the matters on the same dates and conclude them expeditiously.

Issue (i): Whether the four cheque-bounce complaints could be consolidated and tried together.

Analysis: The notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 covered all the cheques, but the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not provide for consolidation of cases. Even assuming Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applied, it would not permit all four matters to be tried together because no more than three offences committed within one year can be tried jointly.

Conclusion: The prayer for a single consolidated trial was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the single notice and the age of the complaints, the trial Court should be directed to fix the matters on the same dates and conclude them expeditiously.

Analysis: Since the complaints had remained pending for about two decades without evidence being recorded, the Court considered it appropriate to grant limited procedural relief to avoid further delay and inconvenience to the parties. The trial Court was directed to list all four cases on the same date and proceed with day-to-day hearing.

Conclusion: The trial Court was directed to fix all four cases on one date, record evidence as it deemed fit, and dispose of the complaints by 31.12.2019.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of securing a coordinated and time-bound trial schedule, while the request for consolidation into one trial was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a provision for consolidation of criminal complaints, and subject to the statutory limit on joint trial under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court may at most grant procedural directions to facilitate simultaneous listing and expeditious disposal.

---