Mr. Fateh Deep Singh J.:- A petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”), has been preferred by petitioner Charashni Kumar Talwani, seeking quashing of criminal complaint filed by respondent M/s Malhotra Poultries, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’), pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panchkula.

2. The brief background as to what has led to this is that during the se proceedings, the petitioner had earlier raised question of territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Panchkula, which prayer was declined by the learned trial Magistrate. Against this a revision was preferred before the learned Sessions Court, which was accepted and the matter was remitted back. It is in the light of this, vide order dated 31.10.2011, the present petitioner was summoned in this complaint as an accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Before the learned trial Court, the petitioner submitted that the present complaint was in respect of dishonour of ten cheques which constitute separate offences and therefore, the accused cannot be tried together. It is argued that under the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C., a person who is accused of offences of the same kind within a period of 12 months can be charged and tried for offences not exceeding three of them but an accused of ten distinct charges, each cheque disclosing separate offence, cannot be charged in one complaint. However, this plea of the accused/present petitioner was rejected. The accused was served with the notice of accusation.

3. It is at this juncture, the petitioner has come up in this petition praying for exercise of inherent powers of this Court for quashing of the complaint. The learned single Bench of this Court, finding contradictory views over the interpretation of Section 219 and Section 220 Cr.P.C., whereby offences which formed part of the same transaction could be tried together irrespective of their number and the contrary view to it, has thought it fit and thus has referred the matter to be decided by a Larger Bench to comprehensively adjudicate on this issue. It is in the light of this, the matter has come up before us.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

5. The Act has been legislated way back in the year 1881 with the purpose to regulate mercantile transactions. However, with the passage of time and evolution of complexities, it was felt necessary to bring about changes for better regulation of the merchanting system. It was with this end in view, Sections 138 to Section 142 were inserted by “The Bank, Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988”, w.e.f. 01.04.1989. This is an apt illustration of balanced and pragmatic approach adopted by the Legislature for the economic development of the Country.

6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd Vs Pennar Peterson Ltd AIR 2000 SC 954, interpreting the provisions of Section 138 of the Act, have laid down the essential ingredients of this provision as follows:

(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in the bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability;

(ii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier;

(iii) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank;

(iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regar