IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal complaints having same kind of offences can be consolidated for a single trial.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.—This is the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner/accused in Criminal Complaint No.256/2020 (C.G.No.0348/2020) against the judgment and order dated 17.12.2024 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun in Criminal Revision No.24/2024 ‘Deepak Agarwal Vs. Navdeep Nagalia’.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2024 of the Sessions Judge, the revision was dismissed thereby sustaining the order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh whereby the application of the petitioner /accused filed under Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. to consolidate the trial of criminal complaint no.348/2020, 349/2020, 350/2020, 351/2020 and 352/2020 was rejected. In all these criminal complaints, the petitioner is the accused and the respondent is the complainant and these complaints are filed to summon, try and punish the petitioner /accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act,1881 (for short “N.I. Act”).

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent /complainant filed five complaints, as stated above, for summoning, trying and punishing the petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act for five cheques issued by the petitioner /accused in favour of respondent /complaining arising out of business transactions of purchase of diesel fuel.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner /accused would submit that all the cheques were issued on the same date, presented before the bank on the same date, dishonored for insufficiency of funds on the same date, the demand notice was also issued on the same date and the cause of action also arose on the same date; that, all these cheques were allegedly issued as part payment for purchase of diesel fuel.

He would further submit that the evidences, documents and the witnesses in all the five complaint cases are same and the examination-in-chief is almost the same with no addition or subtraction; that, the defense of the petitioner /accused is also the same in 2025:UHC:2380 all five complaint cases, therefore, application under Section 220 Cr.P.C. was moved to consolidate the trial of every case.

5. Mr. Neerag Garg, learned counsel for the respondent /complainant would concede that the documentary and oral evidences and witnesses are same in all the five complaint cases and the cheuqes were issued, as alleged in the case, as part payment for sale of diesel fuel to the petitioner /accused. Learned counsel for the respondent /complainant would further submit that, therefore, the respondent /complainant has given his no objection, as recorded in paragraph no.3 of impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh in Criminal Complaint No.256/2020 (C.G. No.0348/2020).

6. Perused the record in the light of the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and considered.

7. As apparent, it is agreed by the parties that the respective dates in all the cases about the presentation of cheques, dishonor of cheques, issuance of notices and filing of complaint cases etc., are the same. However, in the considered view of this Court, cause of action in all the five cases are different. The cause of action in each complaint case allegedly arose independently, on expiry of the period of respective notice when the payment, as demanded in the notice, was not made by the petitioner /accused, therefore, it cannot be said that the offences in all the five cases arose out of one series of facts so connected together as to form the same transaction by the same person as defined under Section 243 of B.N.S.S.(or Section 220 of Cr.P.C.).

8. The main point to appreciate is that in the criminal complaint case for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the business transactions, the presentation of cheques or issuance of notices are not giving rise to any criminality, rather, the cause of action arises only on the non-payment of the notice amount