Whether consolidated complaint for dishonour of two cheques is maintainable if those cheques were issued on different dates?

It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that a great prejudice is likely to be caused to the defence of the petitioner by such joinder of charges in one trial. This has been disagreed to the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. I think, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 is right in expressing his such a disagreement. Reason being that the charge will be framed by the trial Court in such a manner as would contain two heads of offence relating to dishonour of two different cheques, and I would say that the trial Court would be well advised to do so. If this is done, the petitioner would get an ample opportunity to defend himself against the two heads of offence with which he would be charged in this case and would be in a position to prepare adequately on his defence. If it is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner would like to advance two different kinds of defence for dishonour of these two separate cheques, even then, I do not think that any impediment in this regard would be encountered by the petitioner for the reason that the complainant would have to adduce evidence in a specific manner to prove these two different heads of offence and that will result in giving sufficient notice of allegations being made against the petitioner, which shall be enough for him to put up his different stands of defence in respect of these two separate offences. But, these two offences, as stated earlier, having been committed in one and the same transaction, would certainly require a joint trial with the aid of Section 220 of Cr.P.C., which is also a view taken in this case by the Courts below and rightly so.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 884 of 2017

Decided On: 06.02.2018

Umakant  Vs.  State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Shukre, J.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 618

Print Page

Whether single complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques is maintainable?

  Further, the question as to       whether    a single

prosecution on        the basis of   several cheques    issued is

maintainable, has been        considered   by   this   Court    in

Mohammed v. State of Kerala (2004 KHC 1129). In that

case, single complaint was filed in respect of      six separate

cheques issued. While considering the scope of the same, this

Court has held that if the offence was committed as part of the

same transaction, then section 220(1) of Code will apply and

single complaint on the basis of six cheques issued in respect

of the same transaction is maintainable. The same view has

been reiterated in the decision reported in K.G. Udayakumar

v. State of Kerala & Others (2005 KHC 2061). That was also

a case where single complaint was          filed  in   respect of

dishonour of five cheques issued and this Court has held that



the      complaint is maintainable.      The same    question was

considered by the Gujarat High Court as well in the decision

reported in S.J. Shah v. State of Gujarat (1997 KHC 568). In

that case also       single complaint was filed in respect of four

cheques given for different amounts in respect of the same

transaction, in which larger amount was due and the cheques

were issued in discharge of that liability and the Gujarath High

Court has held that        single complaint is maintainable and in

such cases section 219 will not operate as a limitation and it

will be covered by the provisions of section 220 of the Code.

So, in view of the dictum laid down in the above decisions, the

submission made by the counsel for the respondents that the

complaint is not maintainable as two cheques were issued for

different amount with different date has no force and the same

is liable to be rejected as in this case cheques were issued in

respect of a single transaction of Rs.1,28,000/- borrowed by the

accused from the complainant in discharge of which these two

cheques were issued. So the complaint is perfectly maintainable.     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT:

             MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

      26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/

                       CRL.A.No. 673 of 2004 ( )
                       

       T.BHASKARAN, 
Vs
           M.P.MOHANDAS, 
Citation:2016 ALLMR(CRI)JOURNAL 433 kerala

Print Page