TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 521
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 5th February, 2016 which applications were dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 15th March, 2016. Hence the present petitions. 2. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the applications is as under:- "5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. It must be noted here that the cheques in question, dates of their issuance, amounts of the cheques in question, return memos as well as dates of statutory legal notices and amounts claimed therein in these five matters are different. Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant has argued that if all these five matters are clubbed together, then considerable time and effort will be saved. However, I do not find myself to be in agreement with this argument. Since the particulars of the cheque in question, return memos as well as statutory legal notice involved in this case are different from particulars of the cheques in question, return memos as well as statutory legal notice involved in the other four matters, I am of the opinion that clubbing these five mattes together will result in added confusion. It is also settled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be used sparingly and there being no illegality/perversity in the impugned order, this Court will refrain from interfering with the same. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2011 Crl.L.J. 89 State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Arun Gulab Gawali & Ors.. It is further contended that the principles laid down in Sections 219, 220 and 223 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the present case as dishonour of each cheque is a separate cause of action and hence the five complaints cannot be amalgamated. Reliance is placed on decisions of Supreme Court reported as 2003 Crl.L.J. 4452 Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State through CBI(A.H.D.) Ranchi and 2007 Crl.L.J. 844 Rajendra B. Choudhari Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.. Even otherwise, there were seven cheques dishonoured and the respondents/complainants have already filed two complaints for two cheques wherein the dates of the cheques were same. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the applications filed by the petitioner were yet another dilatory tactic. Till date more than 30 dates have been given on the asking of the petitioner for which twice costs has also been imposed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of any special or local law: Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence. 220. Trial for more than one offence.- (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the 1[Magistrate or Court of Session] may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and 2[if he or it is satisfied] that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together." 7. It is trite law that dishonour of each cheque constitutes a separate offence giving rise to a separate cause of action. Sections 219 and 223 Cr.P.C. are exceptions to the general rule that there should be separate charge and separate trial for each distinct offence. Provisions from Sections 219 and 223 (d) of the Cr.P.C. are discretionary in nature and the prime purpose is that by charging and trying together, there is no prejudice to any of the parties and the joint trial is in expediency of the matter. 8. In the decision Rajnish B. Bhatia (supra) this Court upheld the order of the learned Trial Court wherein the prosecution made request that since the witnesses in the two trials were common, it was expedient to try both the cases together as larger conspiracy was involved. Even in Morgan Tectronics Ltd. (supra) relied upon by learned coun....