2019 (9) TMI 1711 - SC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - Consolidation of four complaints - main ground raised is that in terms of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 since the offences took place during the period of one year, the cases should be dealt together - HELD THAT - There is no provision of consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The only relief that can be granted to the Appellant is that it is directed the Trial Magistrate to fix all the four cases on one date so that it is convenient to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four cases on one date - It shall be open to the trial Court to record the evidence in the manner it feels like. Since the original complaints were filed in the year 1999, the Magistrate is directed to fix day to day hearing in the matters and dispose of these complaints latest by 31.12.2019. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
Consolidation of cases under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bouncing of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Directing trial court to fix all four cases on one date for convenience and expeditious disposal.

Consolidation of cases under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
The appellant allegedly issued four cheques that bounced, leading to complaints filed in 1999. The appellant sought consolidation of all four cases, citing Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The contention was that since the offences occurred within a year, the cases should be dealt with together. However, it was noted that even if Section 219 applied, only two trials could be conducted due to the limitation of trying not more than three cases together in a year. The absence of a provision for consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure was highlighted.

Bouncing of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The respondent sent a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding the bouncing of all four cheques. Despite the complaints dragging on for 20 years due to the appellant's request for consolidation, no evidence had been recorded. The issue raised was whether the cases being heard together or separately would have expedited the process, emphasizing the need for timely resolution.

Directing trial court to fix all four cases on one date for convenience and expeditious disposal:
In the judgment, it was directed that the trial magistrate should fix all four cases on one date for the convenience of both parties. The court instructed the magistrate to conduct day-to-day hearings and dispose of the complaints by the end of 2019. This directive aimed to expedite the proceedings and ensure timely resolution of the long-pending cases, providing relief to the appellant by streamlining the hearing process.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment focused on the consolidation of cases under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bouncing of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the directive to the trial court for expeditious disposal by fixing all four cases on one date. The decision aimed to address the delays in the legal process, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution and efficient case management.