Point of Law: Negotiable Instrument- Dishonour of Cheque - Different cheques, may be issued for discharging the liability, arising out of one and same transaction, are separate entities and dishonour of each and every cheque gives a right to complainant to issue notice to drawer

ORDER

Instant petition has been filed assailing impugned order dated 15.10.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. IV, Shimla whereby an application preferred by petitioner/accused under Sections 219 and 220 of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.PC’) has been dismissed in Complaint No. 250 of 2017 titled as Ankush Arora vs. Saya Chauhan, rejecting the prayer of petitioner/accused to charge with and try the petitioner/accused together in two cases i.e. complaint No. 250 of 2017 titled Ankush Arora vs. Saya Chauhan and complaint No. 251 of 2017 titled M/s Fashion Point Boutique vs. Saya Chauhan.

2. For convenience, complainant and accused are being referred in this judgment as per their status in complaint.

3. Facts emerging from record in present case, in brief, are that both complaints have been filed by Ankush Arora i.e. complaint No. 250 of 2017 in individual capacity as Ankush Arora and second on behalf of M/s Fashion Point Boutique through its proprietor Ankush Arora i.e. complaint No. 251 of 2017 wherein Ankush Arora is also party as individual as Complainant No.2. According to Complaint No. 250 of 2017, accused Saya Chauhan had issued two cheques for Rs.1,50,000/- dated 10.5.2017 and Rs.1,98,000/- dated 10.5.2017 in order to liquidate her liability of financial assistance extended by complainant Ankush Arora by giving loan to her. As per Complaint No.251 of 2017 she had also issued three cheques amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 25.4.2017, Rs. 1,50,000/- dated 29.4.2017 and Rs.1,50,000/- dated 4.5.2017 for discharging her liability towards amount due on account of payment of goods purchased by her from shop of complainant i.e. M/s Fashion Point Boutique. On presentation, all these cheques have been dishonoured.

4. Two even dated separate legal notices, dated 14.7.2017, were sent by and on behalf of complainant to accused in terms of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short ‘NI Act’) which were received back unclaimed on 26.7.2017. One notice was with respect to two cheques issued by accused to liquidate her liability of financial assistance, whereas, another notice was with respect to three cheques issued by accused for discharging her liability for payment of goods purchased by her from shop of complainant.

5. Complainant preferred two separate complaints under Sections 138 and 142 of NI Act referred supra.

6. Accused preferred an application to charge with and try the accused at one trial in terms of Sections 219 and 220 of Cr.P.C. The said application was opposed by complainant by filing reply. After taking into consideration the averments made in application and reply and also submissions of learned counsel for parties, trial Court has rejected the application. It has also come on record, which has not been controverted, that similar application bearing Cr.MA No. 643/4 of 2018, filed earlier, was also dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla on 19.5.2018 and the said order was never assailed by accused.

7. It has been contended on behalf of accused that offences alleged to have been committed by accused are arising out of one and same transaction i.e. to discharge her liability to pay some amount to complainant and alleged offences are of same kind alleged to have been committed within a space of 12 months and therefore, keeping in view the provisions of Sections 219 and 220 Cr.PC, accused is entitled to be charged with and tried at one trial. It has been contended on behalf of complainant that transactions involved in two complaints are entirely different and thus, cases arising thereto cannot be clubbed and tried together and more particularly, prayer for the same relief, for which application filed by accused, was dismissed, is not maintainable.

8. Chapter XVII of Cr.PC deals with ‘The Charge”. Part-B thereof provides for “Joinder of Charges”. Section 218 Cr.PC is the Rule, whereas Sections 219 and 220 Cr.PC are exceptions to the General Rule, which read as under:-

“2