1. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused in four complaints instituted by the 1st respondent herein, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Chalakkudy, alleging offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The four complaints in question are (1) S.T.No.2210/2015, (2) S.T.No.2380/2015, (3) S.T.No.3205/2015 and (4) S.T.No. 6548/2015. The petitioner is a lady and is teacher by profession. It is stated that 1st respondent, who is a money lending firm, is the complainant in all the four cases.

2. Anxs.A-2 to A-5 are the copies of the impugned complaints. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner and her husband had availed 3 loans from the complainant firm for a total amount of Rs.20,88,000/- and due to default in making instalments of the loans, the complainant had issued single notice as per Anx.A-1 dated 22.1.2015, calling upon the accused to clear the entire dues in the 3 loans. It is further alleged by the complainant that on 14.2.2015, the complainant and her husband went to the complainant’s office and issued 4 cheques of the petitioner and one cheque of her husband to clear the dues in the said 3 loan accounts. As per the complainant’s case, there was due of Rs.55,200/- in one loan account, Rs.1,65,600/- in another loan and Rs.7,72,800/- in the third loan. That none of the cheques were issued to clear any particular loan, but has been issued to clear the total liability covered by the single and composite notice as per Anx.A-1 dated 22.1.2015.

3. That the petitioner had filed separate applications before the learned Magistrate seeking joint trial of all the four cases by virtue of the provisions contained in S.220(1) of the Cr.P.C. The court below passed Anx.A-6 order dated 14.11.2015 on Crl.M.P.No.12789/2016 in S.T.No. 2210/2015, as per which, the trial court has ordered to conduct joint trial of 3 cases viz., S.T.No.2210, S.T.No.2380/2015 and S.T.No. 3205/2015.

4. Though the petitioner had filed application for joint trial of four cases mainly by placing reliance on S.220(1) of the Cr.P.C., it appears that the learned Magistrate has taken the view in Anx. A-6 order that not more than 3 cases could be subject matter joint trial by virtue of the specific restriction in S.219 of the Cr.P.C that not more than 3 cases could be clubbed. The prayer of the petitioner is that this Court may set aside the impugned Anx.A-6 order to the limited extent it has allowed the plea for joint trial of only 3 cases and to direct the learned Magistrate to permit the joint trial of not only the 3 complaints, but also that of the fourth complaint as well.

5. At the time of admission of this case, notice by speed post was duly ordered to R-1 (complainant). This Court had also ordered grant of interim stay of further proceedings on 14.12.2016, which was later extended until further orders on 28.3.2017. Though notice has been duly served on R-1, there is no appearance for that party.

6. Heard Sri.M.J.Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State.

7. The learned Magistrate had taken the view in Anx.A-6 order that by virtue of the enabling provisions in S.219 of the Cr.P.C., not more than 3 cases could be jointly tried as per that provision.

8. According to the petitioner, the main plea made by her in her application was for an order for joint trial of all the four cases by virtue of the enabling powers conferred under S.220(1) of the Cr.P.C. However, the learned Magistrate has rejected the said request on the ground that not more than 3 cases could be jointly tried by virtue of the provisions contained in S.219 of the Cr.P.C. S.219 deals with situation of 3 offences of the same kind within an year being charged together. Sub section (1) of S.219 stipulates that when a person is accused of more offences than one, of the same kind, committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offe