"Karnataka HC: Section 219 CrPC Doesn’t Require Joint Trial of Distinct Cheque Dishonour Cases Merely Because Accused Is Common"
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed a criminal petition seeking joint trial of two cases under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court held that the petitioner's request was untenable under the factual matrix of the case and directed that the separate trials must continue. It recorded that no commonality existed between the two cases beyond the identity of the accused, and therefore, consolidation of trials could not be permitted. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
The petitioner was being prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in two separate cases, namely C.C. No. 2215/2021 and C.C. No. 2216/2021, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal. The respondent in the criminal petition was the complainant in C.C. No. 2215/2021, while another individual, Sri Channabasappa S/o Rudrappa Devihosur, was the complainant in C.C. No. 2216/2021.
The petitioner had moved an application under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court, seeking a single trial of both cases. He contended that the alleged offences in both matters were of the same kind and were committed within a span of twelve months. The petitioner submitted that since the offences related to the dishonour of cheques issued within the stipulated time frame, a joint trial was permissible under Section 219 of the Code.
The trial court, however, dismissed the application, holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case, consolidation of trials was not permissible. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I, Haveri. The revision petition, numbered Crl.R.P. No. 123/2023, was dismissed as not maintainable. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, seeking to set aside the orders passed by both the trial court and the revisional court.
During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that the offence alleged in both cases was identical, being under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and that the offences were committed within a span of twelve months. It was argued that under Section 219 of the Code, the petitioner should be entitled to a joint trial, even though the complainants in the two cases were different.
The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that there was no legal or factual basis to allow the joint trial. It was emphasized that the two cases arose from distinct transactions, involved different complainants, and pertained to separate cheques issued under independent circumstances. Thus, the respondent asserted that each prosecution was autonomous and could not be merged into a single proceeding.
Upon consideration of the submissions made by both parties, the High Court proceeded to adjudicate the petition in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar recorded that:
“Section 219 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 Court noted:
“It is pertinent to note that the 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 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.”
Justice Amarannavar stated:
“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).”
Further, it was recorded:
“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.”
The Court also observed:
“A complainant is the master of his prosecution. His interests and rights also have to be protected.”
Referring to judicial precedent, the Court cited the High Court of Kerala’s decision in Sidhardhan vs. Prasannan, noting:
“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.”
It was further stated: “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.”
Thus, the Court concluded that the order passed by the learned Magistrate did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
The High Court, after considering all aspects of the case, recorded that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was free from any illegality or irregularity, finding no justification to interfere.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, concluding the proceedings with the formal pronouncement that the petition stood dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Sri. Vidyashankar G. Dalwai, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri. Rajashekhar Burji and Sri. S.M. Kotambari, Advocates
Case Title: Puttanagouda v. Kubergouda
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC-D:6661
Case Number: CRL.P No. 102651 of 2023
Bench: Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar
[Read/Download order]
