Point of Law: The legal position emanating from above precedents is that it is not obligatory for court to hold joint trial, Section 220 being an enabling provision.

ORDER :

1. The first petitioner, partnership firm and the second petitioner, its Managing Partner, are the accused in S.T. No. 1864 of 2020 filed by the respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The short facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as under:

The second petitioner and the respondent were partners of the first petitioner firm. The disputes between the partners resulted in the respondent filing a complaint under Section 420 of IPC against the second petitioner and her husband. This prompted the second petitioner and her husband to approach this Court seeking anticipatory bail. Thereupon, this Court directed the parties to resolve their disputes through mediation. Accordingly, the matter was mediated and settled. As per the terms of settlement, the second petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 2 Crores in full and final settlement of the monetary claims of the respondent. The amount of Rs. 2 Crores was to be paid in 32 instalments. In discharge of that liability, the second petitioner issued 32 cheques dated the 15th of every month, commencing from 15.04.2018 onwards. In addition, the second petitioner's husband executed a personal cheque in favour of the respondent, without mentioning the amount, so as to enable the respondent to realise the amount that may become due by reason of dishonour of any of the 32 cheques issued by the second petitioner.

2. Of the 32 cheques issued by the second petitioner, the first six cheques for Rs. 5 lakhs each were honoured. With respect to the 7th cheque, only Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner. The balance cheques got dishonoured, the initial three, for reason of insufficiency of funds and the other cheques, due to the stop payment direction issued by the drawer. Since only Rs. 31 lakhs out of the Rs. 2 Crores was paid, the cheque issued by the second petitioner's husband was presented by entering the balance amount of Rs. 1,69,00,000/-. As that cheque was also dishonoured, the respondent filed complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, after issuing separate statutory notices for each dishonoured cheques. S.T. No. 1864 of 2020 is one among the cases arising from the complaints filed by the respondent.

3. In S.T. No. 1864 of 2020, the accused filed a petition under Section 219 of Cr.P.C. seeking joint trial of seven other cases instituted by the respondent. The prayer for joint trial was stoutly opposed by the respondent, contending that there is no provision for joint trial of 8 cases. Further, the dates on the cheques, their dates of presentation, dishonour and issuance of notices being different, there cannot be any joint trial. The learned Magistrate, after detailed analysis of Section 218(1), 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. as also the precedents, dismissed the prayer for joint trial. Aggrieved, this Crl. M.C. is filed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners assertively contended that the refusal to conduct joint trial is contrary to the statutory provisions as also the decisions in V.K. Muhammed vs. State of Kerala and Another, 2004 (3) KLT 330 and Shibi @ Jibi Shony vs. Chalakkudy Town Financiers, Thrissur and Another, 2017 KHC 682. In elaboration of the contention, attention was drawn to Section 218 Cr.P.C. which mandates separate charge for every distinct offence of which person is accused and separate trial for every such charge. Reference is made to the proviso to Section 218(1), which provides opportunity for the accused to apply for joint trial of any number of charges framed against him and confers the Magistrate with the discretion to permit joint trial if the accused will not be prejudiced by such procedure. Reliance is placed on Section 220(1) to argue that, if more offences than one are committed by same person, in one series of acts which are so connected together as to form the same transaction, he can be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. It is submitted that the cheque