The absence of provisions for joint complaints under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the NI Act, and the implications of separate causes of action for each complainant influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J. - The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by the respondents against him alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) as also the proceedings emanating therefrom. The impugned complaint is stated to be pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bandipora (hereinafter referred to as the trial Magistrate).

2. It appears that the respondents filed a joint complaint before the trial Magistrate alleging therein that they are contractors by profession and that the petitioner/accused by way of an agreement had allotted some work to them in partnership. It is further alleged in the complaint that an amount of Rs.17,00,000/ was outstanding against the petitioner as cost of the work executed by the respondents. The petitioner is stated to have issued three cheques, out of which two cheques for an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs and Rs.5.00 lacs were issued in favour of respondent No.1-Jameel Ahmad Bhat whereas one cheque for an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs was issued in favour of respondent No.2-Mohammad Rafiq Bhat. These cheques, when presented for encashment by the respondents were returned unpaid for the reason of insufficiency of funds by the banker of the petitioner/accused and in this regard a joint memo of dishonor dated 14.11.2018 was issued by the bank. The respondents, through their counsel, served a joint legal notice of demand dated 28.11.2018 upon the petitioner but despite receipt of the same, the petitioner failed to discharge his liability within the stipulated period of time which prompted the respondents to file the impugned complaint before the trial Magistrate.

3. The only ground which has been urged by the petitioner for impugning the complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom is that a joint complaint on behalf of two or more person is not maintainable because the same is not contemplated either under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or under the provisions of the NI Act.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. It is admitted case of the parties that the respondents/complainants have filed a joint complaint against the petitioner/accused in respect of three different cheques, out of which two cheques were issued in favour of respondent No.1 and one cheque was issued in favour of respondent No.2. The question whether a joint complaint on behalf of more than one person against an accused is maintainable has been a matter of discussion in a number of cases before various High Courts.

6. In Abdul Karim and Ors. Vs. Nangoo and Ors. AIR 192 Oudh 407, the High Court of Oudh has, while considering this question, observed that although there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure that a complaint may be made by more than one person but there is no provision to the contrary as well. The Court went on to observe that there is no reason why a joint complaint should not be made by two persons who allege similar and connected offences against one or more persons committed in the course of the same occurrence. The Court after noticing the provisions contained in Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, which provides that words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa, held that expression 'complainant' appearing in section 200 of the Cr. P. C would include 'complainants'.

7. Taking a contrary view, the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Parijanashram Swamiji vs. Kailaje, ILR 1986 Karnataka 417, while answering the question whether a joint complaint is envisaged under the Code, observed as under:

'7. Sri. R. B. Deshpande, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that the provisions under the Code do not envisage any joint complaint. In that view, he has submitted that the Magistrate has fallen into an error in accepting the joint complaint filed by two complainants and proceeded to take action against the accused, Sri G