1

1.S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.1835/2011

Chand Ratan. VS. Roop Chand.

2.S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.1844/2011

Chand Ratan. VS. Roop Chand.

3.S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.1845/2011

Chand Ratan. VS. Roop Chand.

DATE OF ORDER : 17.1.2012

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the petitioner.

Mr.US Gehlot, for the respondent.

...

All these three misc. petitions are decided by this

common order as they involve common question of law.

These misc. petitions have been preferred by the

petitioner seeking consolidation of three criminal cases

registered against him for offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act for the bouncing of four cheques

held by the respondent Roop Chand.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the four

cheques in relation whereto three separate complaints have

been filed have been issued in the year 2007 i.e. to say all

the three cases relate to the offence of the same kind

having been committed within a period of one year. It is

submitted that in each of three complaints, reference has

2

been made to all the four cheques and thus, by virtue of

Section 219 Cr.P.C., the complaints should be directed to be

consolidated. In support of his contention, learned counsel

has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court

rendered in the cases of (1) Bhadar Ram & Ors. Vs. State

& Ors. reported in 2008(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 297 and (2)

Kamal Garg Vs. State & Anr. reported in 2008(1)

Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 459.

Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the

prayer made by the counsel for petitioner and submits that

the accused petitioner is trying to stall the proceedings and

these misc. petitions have been filed just to delay the

proceedings of the trial court.

I have considered the arguments advanced at the bar

and have perused the orders impugned and the proceedings

of the three complaints.

Admittedly, in this case, four cheques, for the

bouncing of which the petitioner is being prosecuted, have

been issued by the petitioner to the respondent in the year

2007. Thus, all the three complaints, which have been filed

arise out of the bouncing of the cheques issued to the

respondent for the same year. The complainant in all these

cases is the same and in each of the complaint filed by the

3

complainant, reference is made to all the four cheques.

The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for

the petitioner are almost based on similar facts.

Resultantly, the present misc. petitions succeed and

now it is directed that the trial of the three complaints being

Complaint No.228/2009, 229/2009 and 230/2009 titled as

Roop Chand vs. Chand Ratan pending in the Court of

Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Bikaner shall be

clubbed together and tried together. Since the cheques

were issued in the year 2007, the learned Magistrate shall

decide the same not later than six months. No frivolous

applications filed on behalf of the either parties for delaying

the trial shall be entertained.

Stay petitions also stand disposed of.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

S.Phophaliya