TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the petitioner. The respondents were not at all summoned by the trial court, hence issuing notice to respondents, is dispensed with. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.1 and 2, issued cheques for discharge of the liability and those cheques were dishonoured. Hence, after issuing legal notice, required under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complaint came to be filed against both respondents for having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is further contended that the petitioner being the complainant filed a single complaint for dishonour of 5 cheques as under, 1. Cheque no. 060591 drawn on AXIS Bank Limited for Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) by no.1 amongst you and retuned unpaid by you....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aints. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 Criminal Law Journal 2860 and Delhi High Court in the case of Unique Infoways Pvt., Ltd., Vs M/s. MPS Telecom Pvt., Ltd., and other cases. 6. Having heard the arguments, perused records, the only point that arises for the consideration is that, "Whether single complaint is maintainable for multiple cheques issued by the respondent/accused on the same cause of action." 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Damodar S Prabhu Vs Syed Babalal has held "(B) Dishonour of cheque - Cheques issued in one transaction - Filing of multiple complaints - causes tremendous harassment and prejudice to drawer of the cheque". It has hel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice. These directions should be given effect prospectively." 8. In another case by High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in case of "Rajini Chandra Vs State of Andhra Pradesh" has taken the similar view, that both the accused have committed same offence in the course of same transaction, as the transaction is arising out of land dealing for which advance was paid and after the settlement, the cheques were issued by both the accused towards discharging the liability which is of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, a joint trial can be conducted. 9. In another case, the coordinate bench of this court reported in ILR 2000 KAR 5000 in the case of Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be accepted." 10. The High court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in case of "Sh.Charashni Kumar Talwani Vs. M/s. Malhotra Poultries, Naraingarh Road, Barwala, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siva Kumar Vs Natarajan (2009) 13 SCC 623 has held as under; "Thus, from this, it flows that it was only after a lapse of 15 days of the receipt of the notice under Section 138 (c) of the Act by the accused and on non-payment, the offence under Section 138 of the Act is deemed to have been committed. Since, in the present case, there is a single consolidated notice for all the ten cheques so dishonoured, so after the period of 15 days of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reached. That will be decided at the appropriate stage by the learned trial court as and when charges are framed. This issue should therefore be appropriately addressed to that Court. The mere reference in the complaint to 20 cheques as having been dishonoured cannot render the complaint bad in law or not maintainable. The order of the learned MM issuing summons also does not get invalidated on that score. The second submission of learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner is also rejected." and that of Bombay High Court in Rajasthani Trading Co. v. Chemos International Limited II (2001) BC 426 observing: "It is true that in the instant case petitioner has issued 27 cheques, 2 of which were dated 30.11.1996 while the remaining were d....