Multiple cheques from same transaction can be tried together under Section 220 CrPC despite Section 138 restrictions

Delhi HC dismissed appeal regarding consolidation of multiple Section 138 NI Act offences in single complaint. Court held that while SC in Expeditious Trial case recommended legislative amendment allowing trial of same-kind offences within 12 months despite Section 219 CrPC restrictions, it didn't address situations where single demand notice follows dishonour of multiple cheques. HC clarified Section 220 CrPC permits trial of several cheques from same transaction together, emphasizing cause of action's importance in determining complaint maintainability under Section 138 NI Act.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order dismissing revision petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. based on consolidation of cheques in a single complaint.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order dismissing a revision petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. The revision petition was against an order dismissing an application under Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act alleged dishonour of four cheques but was consolidated into a single complaint after a common notice. The petitioner argued that only three cheques could be consolidated in one complaint as per Section 219 of the Cr. P.C.

The petitioner relied on judgments emphasizing the limitation of consolidating three offences in a year in a complaint. The respondent, however, argued that a single notice served on the drawer constituted a single offence, not multiple offences, and thus, Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. did not apply.

The Court examined the submissions and Section 219 of the Cr. P.C., which allows consolidation of up to three offences of the same kind committed within twelve months. The Court noted that the cause of action under Section 138 of the NI Act arises upon the failure to make payment within fifteen days of notice, not upon dishonour of the cheques.

Referring to various precedents, the Court held that where a single notice is served for multiple cheques issued for the same cause, a single complaint is maintainable. The Court cited judgments from Delhi, Karnataka, and Gujarat supporting the maintainability of a single complaint for multiple cheques issued for the same cause of action.

The Court distinguished the Vani Agro Enterprises case, stating that there is no provision in the Cr. P.C. for consolidation of cases. It noted that an ad interim order in the Gaurav Mittal case cannot be a binding precedent. The Court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment recommending a provision in the NI Act for trying offences of the same kind under Section 138 in one trial, regardless of the restriction in Section 219 of the Cr. P.C.

In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the petition, dismissing it and disposing of the pending application without costs. The judgment reaffirmed the maintainability of a single complaint for multiple cheques issued for the same cause of action, based on the service of a single notice to the drawer.

---