ASHUTOSH HUMNABADKAR, DIRECTOR Vs. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing of order dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure P -4) passed by JMIC, Chandigarh in complaint case No. 4643 of 2012 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), whereby, an application filed by the petitioners under Section 219 read with Section 220 Cr.P.C. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for clubbing of eight connected complaints, has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents have filed eight complaints against the petitioners and during the pendency of said complaints, an application was moved by the petitioners under Section 219 read with Section 220 of the Code for clubbing of all the complaints for trial as the same are between the same parties and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents. It was also the ground in the application that all the cheques were drawn at Bank of India, Pune as well as Solan Branch. Reply to the application was filed by the respondents and after hearing counsel for the parties, the application was dismissed on 19.12.2013, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that all the eight complaints are between the same parties and the offence is also the same, which has been committed within a period of 12 months from the first to the last offence. Learned counsel further contends that offence was committed between 4.2.2012 and 11.5.2012 but instead of filing joint complaint relating to all the cheques in dispute, separate complaints were filed. Learned counsel also contends that if all the complaints are tried together, it will not only be convenient for the parties but will save the precious time of the Court as well and would also result in speedy dispensation of justice in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has also relied upon Division Bench judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Manjula Vs. M/s Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd, 2007 1 RCR(Cri) 174, in support of his contentions. Learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that as per provisions of Section 219 of the Code, only three complaints arising within a period of 12 months can be clubbed together. He has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of K.R. Indira Vs. Dr. G. Adinarayana, 2003 8 SCC 300, of this Court in Sh. Charashni Kumar Talwani Vs. M/s Malhotra Poultries, 2014 1 AICLR 617, of Madras High Court in Manjula's case and of Kerala High Court in Swarnalatha Vs. Chandramohan, 1996 3 Crimes 283, in support of his contentions. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents and have also perused the impugned order passed in the application.