JUDGMENT

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1393/2023 & other connected matters Page 3 of 10

1. By way of the present petitions, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 18.11.2022 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (N.I. Act), South East District, New Delhi and seeks directions to the Trial Court to conduct joint/one trial of the cases bearing CC No. 2281/2017, 2282/2017, 2283/2017, 2284/2017, 2285/2017, 2286/2017, 2287/2017 and 2288/2017 filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’).

2. Considering that the criminal complaints arise out of the same impugned order involving the same parties and since common arguments have been addressed from both the sides, the present matters are taken up for consideration together and disposed of vide this common judgment.

3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present petitions are that as per the complaint, the accused persons were distributors of alcoholic beverages of the complainant/respondent No.2. The partnership firm, namely, Jasbir Singh & Company, was in a business relationship with the complainant/respondent No.2. During the course of business relationship, Jasbir Singh L-1 and Deepak Chaudhary L-1 placed certain orders for purchase of various goods and relying on the assurance to pay for the same, the goods were delivered. However, there came to be an outstanding amount of Rs. 78,58,007.23/- in the Tax invoice towards the payment of the goods supplied. In discharge of the debt towards payment of goods, the petitioner/Deepak Chaudhary being the authorized signatory, issued eight different cheques in favour of the complainant/respondent No.2. The details of which are as under:

WP(CRL) Complaint Cheque Date Amount Bank No. Case Nos. Nos.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1393/2023 & other connected matters Page 4 of 10

4. Upon presentment, the aforesaid cheques were dishonoured, resulting in respondent No.2 filing eight different complaints. A total of eight cases came to be registered against the petitioner. Subsequently, an application under Section 220 CrPC was moved by the petitioner seeking joint/one trial Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(CRL) 1393/2023 & other connected matters Page 5 of 10 of all the complaint cases. However, vide the impugned order dated 18.11.2022, the Court of the Presiding Officer, NI Act, rejected the petitioner’s application, noting that said cases do not pertain to same transaction.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders have been passed without due consideration of the facts as well as the legal position. It is contended that since the eight complaint cases relate to the cheques issued w.r.t the same transaction and further considering that the evidences and witnesses in each of these cases would be the same, it would save precious judicial time if the cases are tried together. As such, it is stated that if joint/one trial of the cases does not take place, not only would it lead to multiplicity of proceedings but would also cause great prejudice to the petitioners. In this regard, reliance has also been placed on decisions of Co- ordinate Benches in the case of Unique Infoways Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. MPS Telecom Private Limited reported