K G UDAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari to quash ext. P1. Ext. P1 is a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent in the O. P. against the petitioner under Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Petitioner wants the Court to quash Ext. PI on the ground that Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that only three offences of the same kind within an year alone can be charged together. The offences defined under the said Section are offences of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or of any special or local law. It is a settled law that even if it is assumed that more than, one offence can be charged together the maximum number of offences that can be clubbed together are three and not more. On a reading of statement of facts, it is alleged that 5 cheques were presented before Vijaya Bank, Misir Pokhara, varanassi and all the cheques were returned by the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. with endorsement "exceeds arrangements". Thus it could be seen that cheques though were given for different instalments had been presented on the same day and it has been returned on the same day. The learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice the decisions reported in 2003 (3) KIT SN 42 and 2004 (2) KLJ 447. In the decision reported in 2003 (3) KLT SN page 42, this Court held that these cheques in question were issued by the petitioners to the first respondent on the same day and all the cheques were presented in the Bank and were dishonoured in the same day and one memo was issued to the petitioners stating reason for dishonour of the cheques. Even though these cheques were issued by the petitioners, those cheques were issued in respect of a single transaction and the presentation of these cheques was on the same day. The filing of the complaint alleging dishonour of these cheques issued by the petitioners cannot be said to be against what is stated in Section 219 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Because the allegation in the plaint would go to show that the averments are committed in respect of same transaction for which the petitioners can be charged and proceeded with the same case. In the decision reported in V. K, Mohammed v. State of Kera/a, this Court observed as follows :"in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the offences in respect of six cheques must certainly be, held to be part of same transaction, considering the purpose, the sequence, events, nature of the allegation, proximity of commission, unity of action etc. Therefore, it appears to be easy to conclude that the offences under Section 138 in respect of those cheques can easily be held to be offences committed in the course of same transaction. If that be so, Section 220 (1) squarely applies. "

(2.) In the light of the two decisions rendered by this Court, no further probe into the matter is necessary. It has to be stated that the complaint filed is perfectly maintainable and legally sustainable and so there is no need to interfere and quash the private complaint. This original Petition is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.