Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 442
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Manivannan and Another
Versus
P.R. Adhikesavan
Crl.O.P.No.2326, 2327 of 2007, M.P.No.1, 2 of 2007
Decided On : 07-02-2008
For the Petitioners:G. Jeremiah, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Sampathkumar, Advocate.
Distinct offences arising from the same transaction can be tried separately, and the accused cannot seek quashment solely on the ground of multiple complaints for the same transaction.
Headnote:
Quashment - Criminal Proceedings - Indian Penal Code, S.410, 411, 414, 415, 420, 425; Negotiable Instruments Act, S.138 - The court discussed the provisions of S.218 and S.220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their applicability to the distinct offences of cheating and dishonour of cheques in the context of the same transaction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashment of criminal proceedings in two cases, one under the Indian Penal Code and the other under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent alleged that the petitioners unlawfully sold a vehicle and issued dishonoured cheques.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the distinct offences of cheating and dishonour of cheques arising from the same transaction could be tried separately, as per S.218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The option to try multiple offences together is given to the complaint and prosecuting agency, not the accused.
Issues: Whether two complaints for distinct offences arising from the same transaction are sustainable; Whether the accused can seek quashment on this ground.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for distinct offences, the complainant is entitled to lay two different complaints, and the accused cannot seek quashment solely on the ground of multiple complaints for the same transaction. The discretion to try a series of acts forming the same transaction lies with the court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions seeking quashment and directed the trial court to try both cases separately and complete the trial within three months.
1. Criminal Original Petition No. 2326 of 2007 is filed seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceedings in CC No. 44 of 2003 and Crl. OP No. 2327 of 2003 is filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in CC No. 382 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee.
2. The petitioners face the charges under S.410, 411, 414, 415, 420 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code along with other accused in CC No. 382 of 2002. The petitioners are also facing a case under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in CC No. 44 of 2003.
3. The case of the respondent / complainant is that the petitioners, who are closely related to the complainant took away the Maruti Van of the respondent of permission in the guise of paying visit to their relatives. They never returned the vehicle as promised, but they by entered into an agreement of sale with the third accused and thereafter sold the vehicle to the fourth accused, who in turn, sold the same to the fifth accused in CC No. 382 of 2002. The said occurrence took place during the first week of August, 2001. Thereafter, the respondent laid a complaint on 31/02/2001 with the police concerned. As they had not taken any action on the complaint, the respondent had to approach this Court seeking a direction to register the case invoking the provisions of S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the case was closed as mistake of fact by the police concerned, the respondent, having left with no other option, laid a private complaint which culminated in CC No. 382 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee.
4. The further case of the respondent is that the petitioner herein who figure as A1 and A2, in both the case originally tendered three cheques and a demand draft even during the month of August, 2001. Those three cheques returned dishonoured on presentation by the respondent. But, the respondent did encash the demand draft given by the petitioners for a sum of Rs.17,500/-and appropriated the same towards the tools kept ill the vehicle. The petitioners, having not paid the price of the car which was sold away, coolly left three cheques just before laying the private complaint which ultimately culminated in CC No. 382 of 2002. Those three cheques given by the petitioners were returned dishonoured on presentation for payment and therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the criminal complaint which culminated in CC No. 44 of 2003.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that one transaction spoken to by the respondent has been split into two and two cases have been laid, one for the offences punishable under S.410, 411, 414, 415, 420 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code and another for offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that therefore, these two complaints laid for the very same transaction are not sustainable in the eye of law.
6. Leaned Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the petitioners having agreed to settle the amount due to the respondent before the Lok Adalat, have chosen to back out after making payment of Rs.75,000/- in various instalments. He would further submit that the case of the cheating has a different cause of actions and issuance of the cheque which culminated in the dishonour has a totally different cause of action and that therefore, there is nothing wrong in laying two complaints for those two cause of actions.
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the first set of cause of action has arisen in the first week of August 2001 and the subsequent cause of action for laying a private complaint for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has arisen long thereafter when the three cheques allegedly issued by the respondent bounced on presentation. Further, cheating and the dishonour of the cheques are distinct offences. S.218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would read that for eve
