2023 (11) TMI 745 - HC - Indian Laws

Petition Dismissed: Court Upholds Single Complaint for Multiple Dishonored Cheques under Negotiable Instruments Act.

The HC dismissed the petition challenging the trial court's cognizance of a complaint involving seven dishonored cheques under Section 138 of the ... Dishonour of Cheque - different cause of action for different seven cheques - main ground for impugning the orders is that a single complaint could not be filed for seven cheques which are stated to have been issued by the petitioner/accused as the cause of action for each cheque is different - HELD THAT:- The cheques purportedly issued by the accused form part of a single transaction or different one cannot be finally determined by this Court at this stage though the complainant in the complaint mentions of issuance of cheques in pursuance to the transactions between him and the accused. The provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C would apply in the case in hand so as to knock out the case of the complainant wherein seven cheques have been mentioned to have been issued and get dishonoured cannot be adjudicated upon in the present petition. The Court is of the view that the revisional court has erred in stating that the facts disclosed in the complaint constitute one offence and that Section 219 Cr.P.C has no application in the present case as it is a matter of trial whether the cheques in question could be clubbed in a single complaint. The Court will not entertain the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C unless there are exceptional circumstances which the court considers that in case the proceedings before the trial court are allowed to continue, the same shall be abuse of process of law. The Court in exercise of powers vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot determine the disputed questions of fact which may be raised by the party in the criminal proceedings. It is a matter of trial that the argument raised by the petitioner herein carries weight or not cannot be determined in the present petition. Petition disposed off. Issues:The petitioner challenged the order of cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for seven cheques, arguing that each cheque's cause of action is different and only three cheques can be the subject matter of a complaint under Section 219 Cr.P.C.Judgment Details:1. The petitioner challenged the trial court's order of cognizance for seven dishonored cheques issued to the complainant. The complaint mentioned a business transaction of carpets where Rs. 12 lacs became due to the complainant, resulting in the issuance of the cheques by the accused.2. The revisional court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition, stating that the facts in the complaint constitute one offense, not seven separate offenses, and Section 219 Cr.P.C does not apply in this case.3. The petitioner argued that a single complaint for seven cheques is not valid as each cheque's transaction is distinct, and Section 219 Cr.P.C allows only three offenses of the same kind to be charged together.4. The respondent contended that the complaint is maintainable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as a single notice was issued for the seven cheques, and a consolidated notice regarding dishonor was received.5. The Court referred to a Supreme Court order recommending amendments to allow one trial for multiple offenses under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act committed within 12 months, but noted it does not apply to the present case.6. The Court also considered a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment where it was held that a single complaint is maintainable when different cheques on a single date are presented, and a consolidated notice is issued, linking the cheques as part of the same transaction.7. The Court concluded that whether the cheques form part of a single transaction or different ones cannot be determined at this stage, and it is a matter of trial to decide if the seven cheques can be clubbed in a single complaint.8. The Court emphasized that the revisional court's finding will not prevent the petitioner from raising arguments during the trial, and the petition was disposed of without determining the disputed questions of fact.9. The Court clarified that it cannot decide the validity of the arguments raised by the petitioner at this stage, as it is a matter for trial to determine the competency of a single complaint for seven cheques.