Section 219 CrPC Doesn't Mandate Common Trial Of Two Separate Cheque Dishonour Complaints Merely Because Accused Is Same: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code does not mandate that two cases of cheque bouncing, being prosecuted by two different complainants arising from separate causes of action, can be tried together only for the sole reason that the accused person is the same.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Puttanagouda who had challenged a trial court order which rejected his application for a single trial of the two cases registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him. According to the petitioner, the alleged offences in the two cases were committed within a span of one year.

Referring to the provision the court said, "Section 219 of the Code only postulates that 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. The contention raised by the petitioner on the basis of the above provision, particularly in the factual matrix of this case, is wholly misconceived and untenable. The rule is that for every distinct offence there should be a separate charge, and every such charge should be tried separately (Section 218 of the Code). It is of course true that the Magistrate may try together all or any number of charges framed against the accused, if he so desires, and also if the Magistrate is of opinion that the accused is not likely to be prejudiced by such a course of action. But that does not mean that two cases involving an offence under Section 138 of the Act, which are being prosecuted by two different complainants arising from separate causes of action can be tried together only for the reason that the accused person is the same. A complainant is the master of his prosecution. His interests and rights also have to be protected".

The petitioner had argued that Section 219 CrPC postulates that 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.

It was argued,"Though the complainants in the two cases are different, the offence being of the same kind, the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the applications.”

Findings:

The bench said “Petitioner does not have a case that the two cheques in question were issued in connection with the same transaction or there was anything common between the two cases. There is nothing in common between the two cases other than that the offence alleged in the two cases happens to be one and the same and the petitioner is the accused in both cases.”

Rejecting the contention that Section 220 of CrPC was applicable to the case the court said,

The court observed “What is contemplated in the above provision is a joint charge and one trial for more than one offence, if they are committed in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. It is inconceivable as to how the common accused in two complaints filed by two different complainants albeit alleging commission of the same offence (Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act), under different circumstances, can seek the benefit of Section 219 or 220 of the Code.”

The court said that the Magistrate had rightly noted that the complainants and their witnesses have to be examined in both the cases and the documents in the two cases have to be marked separately and for all practical purposes the merit of the two cases has to be evaluated separately.

"It may be true that the offence in the two cases is of the same kind. The common factor is only that the petitioner is the accused in the two cases. For that reason alone, it cannot be contended that the two complaints filed by two different complainants under different set of circumstances have to be tried at one trial. The learned Magistrate was therefore justified in dismissing the applications," the court added. 

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Advocate Vidyashankar G Dalwai for Petitioner.

Advocates Rajashekhar Burji, S M Kotambari for Respondent

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 157

Case Title: Puttanagowda AND Kubergouda

Case No:CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102651 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order