Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
DR VENUGOPAL P R, – Appellant
Versus
SREE GOKULAM CHIT & FINANCE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, – Respondent
OP(Crl.) 559 2023
V.PREMCHAND HALIYA, T.P.MAHADEV, M.J.
Joint trials cannot be ordered when the underlying transactions are distinct, even if the parties involved are the same.
Headnote:
Trial - Joint Trial Application - Constitution of India Article 227 - Court's dismissal of petition for joint trial due to distinct transactions in separate cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking joint trials for two separate cases, arguing the dishonored cheques were interconnected, but the respondent claimed the cases involved different transactions.
Finding of the Court:
The court concluded that the cases were based on entirely different transactions and that sharing common parties was insufficient to warrant a joint trial.
Issues: Whether the cases should be tried jointly despite being based on different transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: The existence of separate transactions in both cases invalidated the premise for a joint trial as outlined in Article 227.
Final Decision: The original petition is dismissed.
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2023 This original petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the prayer is as under:-
i. Call for records leading to Ext.P4 and set aside the same.
ii. issue a direction to Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Thalassery to allow Ext.P4 application for joint trial.
iii. Allow Ext.P4 application for joint trial and direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Thalassery to expedite the trial of Annexure-1 and Annexure-II.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner wants joint trial or simultaneous trial of S.T. No. 730/2016, 731/2016 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thalassery on asserting that the cheques were dishonored and the subsequent events in relation to two cases were identical. It is also submitted that the accused has common defence to be offered in both cases and therefore, joint trial or simultaneous trial of both cases by one Magistrate is inevitable. It is also submitted that dismissal of C.M.P. No. 300/2023 in S.T.No.98/2022 as per order dated 05.07.2023 is illegal and the same is to be set aside.
Adv. Mahesh Raman appeared for the respondent and he would submit that these cases are not fit for joint trial, since the transactions dealt in the complaints in S.T. No. 730/2016 and S.T.
No. 731/2016 are entirely different.
4. I have perused the copy of the complaint in S.T. No.
730/2016 produced as Ext.P1. In para number 2 of the complaint, it has been narrated that the cheque involved in this case is with regard to arrears due under chit Nos. G2M/0109/KDM/06 and G2M/0109/KDM/07 conducted by the complainant which was kept in arrears by the accused. On perusal of Ext.P2 complaint by the complainant in S.T. No. 731/2016, it has been stated that cheque alleged to be issued in this case is pertaining to chit transactions G2M/0093/KDM/09 and G2M/0093/KDM/10 and G2M/0093/KDM/11. It is apparent that, in fact, two separate chittty transactions and consequential issuance of cheques for the discarge of the liability to the said two separate ‘chitty’ are the subject matter in S.T. No. 730/2016 and S.T. No. 731/2016 respectively.
Therefore, the entire transaction in both complaints is different and in such a case, merely on the ground that the parties are the same and the cheques were dishonored on the same date are not grounds to either allow joint trial or simultaneous trial. Therefore, the original petition found to be meritless, and accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
05.07.2023NUMBERED AS CMP NO 300/2023 IN S.T.C
98/2022 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-CLASS MAGISTRATE-
II, THALASSERY Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 IN CMP
300/2023 IN S.T.C 98/2022 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST-
CLASS MAGISTRATE-II, THALASSERY RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
