Heard.

1. By this application under section 482 of CrPC accused Mukesh Birthare preferred the present petition, being aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2010 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Mhow in Criminal Revision No. 182/10 upholding the order of the trial Court, rejecting the application under section 219 of the CrPC filed by the present petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant Deepak Sharma tiled complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that 6 cheques issued by the present petitioner on various dates in the year 2006 were dishonoured and the accused failed to repay the loan, despite statutory notice. Counsel stated that the complainant filed a single complaint before the trial Court and hence he filed application under section 219 of the CrPC which states that the Court can only try three offences of the same kind within year may be charged together and hence, there were a bar under the provisions of law for the consolidation, since the cheques were issued on different cheques for different transactions and for each dishonoured cheque a separate trial would have to be conducted. The trial Court, however, rejected the application and the rejection was upheld by the Revisional Court, and hence, this application for quashment of the impugned order under section 482 of the CrPC.

3. Counsel for the applicant has vehemently prayed for stay of the proceedings in the Court below in this regard. He argued that the Courts below had erred in dismissing the application filed by the applicant merely on the ground that the offence is committed in sequence or series of events and two complaints would not be necessary. Counsel urged that such a finding by the learned Courts below is against the provisions of law and the Courts below had committed a grave error in holding that these offences of the similar crime together and the order was on facts of the case is illegal per se and without jurisdiction. Moreover, Counsel also pointed out that the word 'cheque' in singular is used in section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and he has referred to judgment of this Court in the matter of Criminal Revision No. 1114/2009, whereby the Court had upheld the order of remand directing the trial Court to try the case separately for separate cheques under the same set of circumstances. Counsel prayed that the criminal complaint by the respondent bearing No. 168/07 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Class I, Mhow, Distt. Indore be quashed.

4. On considering the above submissions and perusing the impugned order, I find that there is no infirmity in the same. Indubitably section 218 of the CrPC mandates that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge and the accused shall be tried separately. Section 219 of the CrPC directs that only three offences of a kind within year may be charged together and]t abo specifies that the offences must he of the same kind and it he spaced within 12 months and when it is against the same accused and the offences are punishable with the same amount of punishment. However, subsection (1) of section 220 of OPC also makes it clear that if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for every such offence. Sub-section (2) provides that when a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose or facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for every such offence.

5. Then, I also find that learned Judge of the Revisional Court has relied on Anita v. Anil Kum