IMPORTANT POINT
The court can allow the clubbing of complaint cases related to dishonoured cheques issued within a span of two months to satisfy a common liability arising from a transaction, based on Cr.P.C. provisions and Supreme Court observations.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks clubbing of Complaint Case Nos. 9213/2019 and 9214/2019 both titled as `Smt. Santosh Devi vs M/s Synergy Earth Movers' pending before the Court of learned MM, North West, Delhi.

2. Briefly, the facts as available from the complaint/material placed on record are that the petitioner has alleged that respondent No.2 is a proprietorship firm and that respondent No.3 is the director/proprietor of the said firm, looking after its day-to-day affairs. It is further alleged that respondent No.3 had approached the petitioner through an offer letter for providing machinery for a project on Yamuna Expressway, and the same came to be accepted by the petitioner. As per the offer letter, payment would be made by respondent Nos.2 and 3, on the basis of the bills raised by the petitioner. In response to the bills raised by the petitioner, following 3 cheques were issued:

a. Cheque No.365721 dated 20.08.2009 amounting to Rs.1,40,000/-. SBI Bank, Branch-Dankaur;

b. Cheque No.365727 dated 13.10.2009 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, SBI Bank, Branch-Dankaur; and

c. Cheque No.365728 dated 20.09.2009 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, SBI Bank, Branch-Dankaur

3. When the said cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured with the remark `insufficient funds' vide return memo dated 06.03.2010. Legal notice was issued on 18.03.2010 thereby asking respondent Nos.2 and 3 to make the payment of Rs.3,40,000/-. However respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to make the said payment.

4. Upon such failure, the petitioner filed complaints under section 138, NI Act bearing No. 243/2010 and 244/2010 before the learned ACJM, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. The court summoned respondent No.3 being the director of respondent No.2 company in the said complaint case. Subsequently, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for settling the matter through mediation. The matter was resultantly referred to mediation however, the same eventually failed.

5. Subsequently, applications for transfer of the said complaints from District Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar, U.P. to District Court, Rohini, Delhi came to be filed under the N.I. (Amendment Ordinance) Act, 2015 and the same were allowed vide order dated 06.02.2019. The said transferred complaints were received in the court of the learned MM, Rohini and were registered as Complaint Case Nos. 9213/2019 and 9214/2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the present complaints arise out of the same transaction and relate to three cheques which were issued in the discharge of certain liability arising from a common nexus as well as the fact that the parties are the same, it would be apt if the same are clubbed together and considered by the trial court. It is further submitted that the clubbing of the said cases is further necessitated owing to the fact that the petitioner inadvertently annexed cheque No.365721 in Complaint Case No.9213/2019 instead of cheques bearing Nos. 365727 and 365728 and similarly, in Complaint Case No.9214/2019, the petitioner has annexed the cheques bearing Nos. 365727 and 365728 instead of cheque No.365721, while filing the complaints in the year 2010.

7. Before adverting to the aspect of clubbing of the present matter, it is important to note here that vide judgement of even date passed in CRL.M.C. 6853/2023 and 6863/2023, this Court has quashed the abovementioned complaint cases (and consequently the summoning order issued in them) against respondent No.3 namely Jitendra Bhati.

8. However, with regard to respondent No.2 i.e., M/s Synergy Earth Movers, it can be observed that the subject cheques were issued on behalf of the said firm in order to satisfy the liability arising out of the bills raised by the petitioner. The said bills arise from the work undertaken in terms of the offer letter provided on behalf of the said respondent.

9. While the NI Act does not con