TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Multiple cheques from same transaction can be tried together under Section 220 CrPC despite Section 138 restrictions</h1> Delhi HC dismissed appeal regarding consolidation of multiple Section 138 NI Act offences in single complaint. Court held that while SC in Expeditious ... Dishonour of cheques - Interpretation of Section 219 of the CrPC - consolidation of multiple offences in a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) - single/combined complaint filed for the dishonour of four cheques, after sending a single/combined legal notice of demand - HELD THAT:- The Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, In re, [2021 (4) TMI 702 - SUPREME COURT], wherein, the Supreme Court, while upholding the course adopted by the Supreme Court in Vani Agro Enterprises [2019 (9) TMI 1711 - SUPREME COURT], recommended that a provision be made in the NI Act to the effect that a person can be tried in one trial for offences of the same kind u/S 138 of the NI Act in the space of 12 months, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. However, it did not consider the case where post the dishonour of more than three cheques, a single notice of demand is sent by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque to the drawer of the cheque. On the other hand, it further held that there is no ambiguity in Section 220 of the Cr. P.C. in accordance with which several cheques issued as part of the same transaction can be the subject matter of one trial. This judgment clarifies the application of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. in cases of dishonour of multiple cheques and emphasizes the importance of the cause of action in determining the maintainability of a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act. Appeal is dismissed. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
