9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 611X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and prejudice to drawer of the cheque . It has held the complainant should file an affidavit stating that he has not filed any other complaint for the same cause of action. In another case by High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in case of Rajini Chandra Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [ 2010 (2) TMI 1324 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] has taken the similar view, that both the accused have committed same offence in the course of same transaction, as the transaction is arising out of land dealing for which advance was paid and after the settlement, the cheques were issued by both the accused towards discharging the liability which is of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, a joint trial can be conducted. Thus, when all the cheques were issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. It is further contended that the petitioner being the complainant filed a single complaint for dishonour of 5 cheques as under, 1. Cheque no. 060591 drawn on AXIS Bank Limited for Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) by no.1 amongst you and retuned unpaid by your Banker on 24/06/2020 with an endorsement Funds insufficient . 2. Cheque no.447617 drawn on Canara Bank for Rs.10,00,000/-(rupees ten lakhs) by No.2 amongst you and returned by your Banker on 03/07/2020 with an endorsement Dormant . 3. Cheque No.048993 drawn on Axis Bank Limited for Rs.15,00,000 (rupees fifteen lakhs) by no.2 amongst you and returned unpaid by your Banker on 08/07/2020 with an endorsement Account closed . 4. Cheque No.447618 drawn on Canara ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the same cause of action. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Damodar S Prabhu Vs Syed Babalal has held (B) Dishonour of cheque - Cheques issued in one transaction - Filing of multiple complaints - causes tremendous harassment and prejudice to drawer of the cheque . It has held the complainant should file an affidavit stating that he has not filed any other complaint for the same cause of action. At paragraph No.16 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of in the Damodar S Prabhu Vs Syed Babalal has held as under ; 16. We are also in agreement with the Learned Attorney General's suggestions for controlling the filing of multiple complaints that are relatable to the same transaction. It was submitted that complaints ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere issued by both the accused towards discharging the liability which is of legally enforceable debt. Therefore, a joint trial can be conducted. 9. In another case, the coordinate bench of this court reported in ILR 2000 KAR 5000 in the case of Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd and Others Vs M/s Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton and General Merchants has held at paragraph 6 as under; 6. In so far as the important question raised for consideration in this petition that the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. is attracted to the facts of the case is concerned, it is contended that cause of action for the complainant arose only after service of notice to the accused. It is pointed out that the complainant has issued a single notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt of the notice under Section 138 (c) of the Act by the accused and on non-payment, the offence under Section 138 of the Act is deemed to have been committed. Since, in the present case, there is a single consolidated notice for all the ten cheques so dishonoured, so after the period of 15 days of the receipt of this consolidated notice upon non payment of the amount of these cheques, the offence under Section 138 of the Act is deemed to have taken place. Thus, it invariably gives rise to a single offence only as it is a single criminal act of omission and conduct of the accused. 11. Further it has held that a consolidated single notice has been issued for dishonour of multiple cheques which amounts to commission of single offence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmission of learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner is also rejected. and that of Bombay High Court in Rajasthani Trading Co. v. Chemos International Limited II (2001) BC 426 observing: It is true that in the instant case petitioner has issued 27 cheques, 2 of which were dated 30.11.1996 while the remaining were dated 26.2.1997. Thus all the 27 cheques came to be issued to respondent No. 1, within a span of less than 3 months. It is also true that dishonour in respect of each cheque would constitute separate offence. However, it is to be borne in mind that all the 27 cheques were presented to the Bank on one and the same date and they were dishonoured by the Bank. The intimation of dishonour of the cheques was given by the Bank to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
