MUKESH BIRTHARE Vs. DEEPAK SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. By this application under Section 482 of the Cr.PC accused Mukesh Birthare preferred the present petition, being aggrieved by the order dated 21-7-2010 passed by the Ilnd Additional District Judge, Mhow in Criminal Revision No. 182/10 upholding the order of the Trial Court, rejecting the application under Section 219 of the Cr.PC filed by the present petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the respondent complainant Deepak Sharma filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that 6 cheques issued by the present petitioner on various dates in the year 2006 were dishonoured and the accused failed to repay the loan, despite statutory notice. Counsel stated that the complainant filed a single complaint before the Trial Court and hence he filed application under Section 219 of the Cr.PC which states that the Court can only try three offences of the same kind within year may be charged together and hence, there were a bar under the provisions of law for the consolidation, since the cheques were issued on different cheques for different transactions and for each dishonoured cheque a separate trial would have to be conducted. The Trial Court, however, rejected the application and the rejection was uphold by the Revisional Court, and hence, this application for quashment of the impugned order under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

(3.) THEN, I also find that learned Judge of the Revisional Court has relied on Anita Vs. Anil Kumar Mehta and others, 1996 Part I Crime 412 and Manjula Vs. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. through authorised signature T. Harikumar, 2007 Part I CLDC 198, to state that Section 219 of the Cr.PC will not be a bar to prosecution on one complaint even if it involved more than three dispute cheques.