DE-FAB Vs. BALACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner, partnership firm and the second petitioner, its Managing Partner, are the accused in S.T.No.1864 of 2020 filed by the respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The short facts leading to the filing of the complaint are as under; The second petitioner and the respondent were partners of the first petitioner firm. The disputes between the partners resulted in the respondent filing a complaint under Sec. 420 of IPC against the second petitioner and her husband. This prompted the second petitioner and her husband to approach this Court seeking anticipatory bail. Thereupon, this Court directed the parties to resolve their disputes through mediation. Accordingly, the matter was mediated and settled. As per the terms of settlement, the second petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs.2.00Crores in full and final settlement of the monetary claims of the respondent. The amount of Rs.2.00 Crores was to be paid in 32 instalments. In discharge of that liability, the second petitioner issued 32 cheques dated the 15th of every month, commencing from 15/4/2018 onwards. In addition, the second petitioner's husband executed a personal cheque in favour of the respondent, without mentioning the amount, so as to enable the respondent to realise the amount that may become due by reason of dishonour of any of the 32 cheques issued by the second petitioner.

(2.) Of the 32 cheques issued by the second petitioner, the first six cheques for Rs.5.00 lakhs each were honoured. With respect to the 7th cheque, only Rs.1,00,000.00 was paid by the petitioner. The balance cheques got dishonoured, the initial three, for reason of insufficiency of funds and the other cheques, due to the stop payment direction issued by the drawer. Since only Rs.31.00 lakhs out of the Rs.2.00 Crores was paid, the cheque issued by the second petitioner's husband was presented by entering the balance amount of Rs.1,69,00,000.00. As that cheque was also dishonoured, the respondent filed complaints under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act, after issuing separate statutory notices for each dishonoured cheques. S.T.No.1864 of 2020 is one among the cases arising from the complaints filed by the respondent.

(3.) In S.T.No.1864 of 2020, the accused filed a petition under Sec. 219 of Cr.P.C, seeking joint trial of seven other cases instituted by the respondent. The prayer for joint trial was stoutly opposed by the respondent, contending that there is no provision for joint trial of 8 cases. Further, the dates on the cheques, their dates of presentation, dishonour and issuance of notices being different, there cannot be any joint trial. The learned Magistrate, after detailed analysis of Sec. 218(1), 219 and 220 Cr.P.C, as also the precedents, dismissed the prayer for joint trial. Aggrieved, this Crl.M.C is filed.