1. - In this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) Court, Bikaner and the order dated 13.7.2010 passed by the Revisional Court in revision petition No. 16 of 2010 may be.quashed and set aside and the prayer made by the petitioners to consolidate and try both the cases together, may be allowed.

2. According to the facts of the case, the petitioner is facing trial in two cases for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before Special Judicial Magistrate (NI Act Cases) Court, Bikaner. Both the cases are arising out from two cheques given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2. First cheque was given on 11.2.2008 and second cheque was given on 5.3.2008 and both above cheques were dishonoured. After issuing notice to the petitioner, two complaints were filed for both the cheques separately by the complainant against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court praying therein that both the cheques have been issued during the course of same transaction and notices have been issued on the same day and complaints have been filed on the same day, therefore, it is appropriate to consolidate both the cases and try them together.

3. Learned Magistrate rejected the application filed under Section 219 Criminal Procedure Code by the petitioner vide order dated 12.1.2010, against which the petitioner preferred a revision petition, that too, was dismissed by the Revisional Court and in this petition filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the Trial Court to try both the complaints together in view of Section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that orders impugned in this misc. petition are contrary to law because both the cases were registered within one year in connection with same transaction, therefore, both the orders are against the provisions of Section 219 Criminal Procedure Code. Hence, both the orders may be quashed and set aside and Trial Court may be directed to try both the complaints in view of Section 219 Criminal Procedure Code.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention towards judgment of this Court in case of Radha Krishna Dang v. Indrajeet Bilandi, reported in 2008 (2) NIJ 379 (Raj) = 2008 (2) CrLR (Raj.) 942 and prayed that in view of aforesaid judgment, the direction as prayed for by the petitioner in the application filed under Section 219 before the Magistrate, may be granted.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that power under Section 219 Criminal Procedure Code is discretionary and petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right and here, in this case, both the cheques were issued by the petitioner to the complainant but both the cheques were issued on different dates and for different amount, therefore, Section 219 Criminal Procedure Code will not come to play for the purpose of granting relief as prayed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that as per judgment of this Court in case of Vijay Dev & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Anr., reported in 2008 (2) NIJ 463 (Raj) = 2008 (2) CrLR (Raj.) 1206 and judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Ramjan Mohammad Usuf Kokani v. Atul Vijay Madan & Anr., reported in 2008 (2) NIJ 674 (Bom)[NOC] and judgment of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in case of Kershi Pirozsha Bhagvagar v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2008 (1) NIJ 86 (Guj)(DB) and judgment of Gujarat High Court in case of Jayeshbhai Jayantibhai Maniar v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2006 (1) NIJ 48 (Guj) the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the fact that cheques were issued on different dates and for different amount; and as per judgment of Gujarat High Court, Section 219 Criminal Procedure Code wil