Deepak Chaudhary v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

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) No. Complaint Case Nos. Cheque Nos. Date Amount Bank 1393/2023 2283/2017 708536 18-10- Rs.3,00,000/- Oriental Bank of Commerce 1397/2023 2287/2017 708539 18-10- Bank of Commerce 1398/2023 2281/2017 708534 18-10- Bank of Commerce 1401/2023 2286/2017 708540 18-10- Bank of Commerce 1427/2023 2282/2017 708538 18-10- Bank of Commerce 1428/2023 2285/2017 708535 18-10- Bank of Commerce 1433/2023 2288/2017 708537 18-10- Bank of Commerce 1434/2023 2284/2017 708541 18-10- Bank of Commerce

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 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 Coordinate Benches in the case of Unique Infoways Pvt. Ltd. And Others v. MPS Telecom Private Limited reported as (201 9) SCC OnLine Del 7808, Sharma Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. State &Anr reported as 2012 SCC OnLine Del 310, and the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ashutosh Humnabadkar, Director M/s. Digihome Solutions (P) Ltd and another v. Continental Device India Ltd. and Anr. reported as 2015 SCC OnLine P&H 2261.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, has contested the present petitioner and has contended that the impugned orders have been passed in line with the established judicial principles. It is contended that the principles laid down in Sections 219, 220 Cr.P.C. are not applicable to the facts of the present case as dishonour of each cheque is a separate cause of action and hence the eight complaints cannot be amalgamated. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court in Lalu Prasad alias Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State through CBI(A.H.D.) Ranch reported as reported as 2003 Crl.L.J. 4452 and Rajendra B. Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra reported as 2007 Crl.L.J.

844. He further submits that as the matters are listed together as connected matters and are taken up together on the same dates there is no need to conduct a joint/one trial. Lastly, it is submitted that there is a strong likelihood of the complainant succeeding in all the matters. Hence, if joint/one trial is ordered, the complainant may suffer significant losses, as conviction would be recorded in only one matter.

7. I have heard the counsels of the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The short controversy in the present case is that in case of dishonour of eight aforementioned cheques between the same parties, all eight complaints can be tried together or not.

9. While the NI Act does not contain any express provision for joint/one trial of complaint cases arising from distinct cheques, it would be apposite to refer to Sections 219 and 220 of the Cr.P.C. which read as under: -

“Section 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. xxx”

10. The aforesaid provisions provide for joint/one trial of offences, which in terms of the general legal principle would have to be tried separately. While Section 219 Cr.P.C. has a restriction that a maximum of 3 offences of the same kind can be tried together, Section 220 does not expressly impose any such bar but simply states that offences must form part of the same transaction. It is well-established law that the dishonour of each cheque constitutes a distinct offence, giving rise to a separate cause of action. However, Sections 219 and 220 act as exceptions to the general rule requiring separate charges and trials for distinct offences. The primary objective of these exceptions is to ensure expediency and efficiency in legal proceedings while avoiding any prejudice to the parties involved.

11. The Supreme Court in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881 reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 325, w.r.t application of Section 219/220 Cr.P.C., observed as under:- “SECTIONS 219 AND 220 OF THE CODE

13. Section 219 of the Code provides that when a person is accused of more offences than one, of the same kind, committed within a space of 12 months, he may be tried at one trial for a maximum of three such offences. If more than one offence is committed by the same person in one series of acts so committed together as to form the same transaction, he may be charged with and tried at one trial, according to Section 220. In his preliminary report, the learned Amici Curiae suggested that a legislative amendment is required to Section 219 of the Code to avoid multiplicity of proceedings where cheques have been issued for one purpose. In so far as Section 220 of the Code is concerned, the learned Amici Curiae submitted that same/similar offences as part of the same transaction in one series of acts may be the subject matter of one trial. It was argued by the learned Amici Curiae that Section 220(1) of the Code is not controlled by Section 219 and even if the offences are more than three in respect of the same transaction, there can be a joint trial. Reliance was placed on a judgment of this Court in Balbir v. State of Haryana & Anr. to contend that all offences alleged to have been committed by the accused as a part of the same transaction can be tried together in one trial, even if those offences may have been committed as a part of a larger conspiracy.