IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 01.12.2025 M/S R.S.ENTERPRISES AND ANR ... PETITIONERS VERSUS M/S UNION SPORTS INTL ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by JMIC Jalandhar whereby the application under Section 242 BNSS for clubbing of the complaints i.e. NACT/723/2021 and NACT/609/2021 in NACT No. 723 dated 25.02.2021 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the petitioner has been declined.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the two complaints, bearing Complaint Nos. NACT/723/2021 and NACT/609/2021 titled as Union Sports International vs. R.S. Enterprises, have been instituted by the complainant arising out of the same transaction between the same parties. It is submitted that the complainant has filed two separate complaints only with an intent to unnecessarily harass the petitioner. The first complaint pertains to the dishonour of cheque bearing No. 310271 dated 14.01.2021 for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-, whereas the second complaint pertains to cheque bearing No. 310272 dated 21.01.2021 for an amount of Rs. 6,05,634/-. Both the cheques were allegedly dishonoured on 15.01.2021 and 25.01.2021 respectively, within a period of one year. Both the complaints are arsing out of the same transaction between the same parties. He further prays that both the complaints may be clubbed and adjudicated by a common judgment, the same would avoid multiplicity of proceedings and serve the ends of justice. He has placed reliance on the judgment titled as Gurminder Singh Pahwa @ Dimpy Vs Satish Kumar Singhania and others in CRM-M-42089-2023 decided on

11.12.2023.

3. The provision of Sections 219 and 220 of Cr.P.C. are reproduced as under:-

219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together.— (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.

(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local law:

Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.

220. Trial for more than one offence.—(1) 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.

2) 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 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of 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.

(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offe