Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice G. Girish held that a criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is maintainable through a single complaint for the dishonour of multiple cheques, where a consolidated statutory notice has been issued and the cheques form part of the same transaction. The Court dismissed a petition filed by an accused challenging the maintainability of such a prosecution arising from four dishonoured cheques, all issued towards repayment of a single debt and covered by one consolidated demand notice.

The petitioner was prosecuted under the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of four cheques issued towards repayment of a debt amounting to Rs.2,75,000. The cheques, dated between February and March 2018, were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. A consolidated legal notice was issued demanding payment of the amounts covered by all five cheques, one of which was subsequently settled.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Orders Director Of Health Services To Conduct Comprehensive Safety Audit Across All Three State Mental Health Centres

The complainant filed a single complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kottayam, in respect of the remaining four cheques. The petitioner contended that a consolidated prosecution was not legally maintainable, citing precedents that limited joint trials. The Magistrate rejected this contention, holding that a single offence was constituted when payment was not made in response to the consolidated notice. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the complaint.

The Court recorded: "Can there be a criminal prosecution for the commission of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a single complaint for the dishonor of four cheques for which the complainant had issued a consolidated single notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act? This is the precise legal issue to be resolved in this case."

It stated: "Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the general law that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge which is to be tried separately."

The Court noted: "Section 220 Cr.PC deals with the consolidation of charges in a single trial of more offences than one committed by the same person, if such offences arose out of one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction."

Referring to precedent, the Court observed: "For several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action."

It further recorded: "The expression 'same transaction' from its very nature is incapable of an exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense and the ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts of a particular case, it can be held to be in one transaction."

The Court stated: "Going by the parameters dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the term 'series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction', there is absolutely no room for any doubt as to the applicability of Section 220 Cr.PC in the present case."

It recorded: "An identical issue came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Mohamed v. State of Kerala [2004 KHC 1129]… the prosecution is perfectly maintainable since the offences involved were constituted out of one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction."

The Court noted: "The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying on Vani Agro Enterprises cannot be accepted since the factual matrix of that case as well as the provision of law dealt with are totally different."

Finally, the Court stated: "It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, In re [(2021) 16 SCC 116] has upheld the applicability of Section 220 Cr.PC for the conduct of a single trial for the dishonour of several cheques issued by an accused in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction."

Also Read: Motor Accident | Supreme Court Restores 'Pay And Recover' Principle Against Insurer Where Deceased Travelled As Gratuitous Passenger In Goods Vehicle

The Court directed: "In the light of the settled position of law in the above regard, the present petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.PC, assailing the maintainability of S.T.No.143/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kottayam, is devoid of merits. Resultantly, the petition is hereby dismissed."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri. S. Ranjit (K/250/1999), Sri. Gokul Das V. V.H.
For the Respondents: Sri. Liji J. Vadakedom, Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George

Case Title: Balachandran v. Sajan Mathew & State of Kerala
Neutral Citation: 2026 : KER:13892
Case Number: Crl.M.C.No.4832/2020
Bench: Justice G. Girish