Umakant S/O. Dattatray ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ...

on 6 February, 2018

Bombay High Court

Umakant S/O. Dattatray ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 6 February, 2018
Bench: S.B. Shukre
cwp.884.17.jud 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.884 OF 2017

Petitioner : Umakant s/o Dattatray Chakkarwar,

Aged about 65 years, Occ. Retired Teacher,
R/o Greenpark, 1 Shrirampur,
Tq. Pusad, District Yavatmal.

-- Versus --

Respondents : 1] State of Maharashtra,

Through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Pusad.

2] Nitin Suresh Bhoyar,

Aged 38 years, Occ. Business,
R/o Etava Ward, Pusad,
District Yavatmal.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri S.D. Dhayaskar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Ritu Kalia, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri S.D. Chopde, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATE : 6th FEBRUARY, 2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

02] The petitioner is being tried for dishonour of two cheques, one dated 21/10/2014 and other
dated 27/10/2014, both issued for Rs.80,000/- each. They were issued towards discharge of debt of
Rs.1,60,000/- that the petitioner alleged to have owed to the complainant-respondent no.2. The
petitioner filed an application [Exh.31] contending that as the cheques were of different dates and
were dishonoured on different dates, gave rise to different causes of action and, therefore, for the
alleged dishonour of these two cheques, two separate complaints ought to have been filed by
respondent no.2 and as those separate complaints were not filed, the present complaint

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/109803707/ 1

 Umakant S/O. Dattatray ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 6 February, 2018

consolidating these two offences was not maintainable. The learned Magistrate, Pusad by his order
passed on 29/06/2017 rejected the application. 03] The order of the learned Magistrate was
challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad, District Yavatmal by filing an revision
application bearing Criminal Revision No.14/2017. The criminal revision was also dismissed on
merits on 18/08/2017 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad. 04] Now the petitioner -
accused has challenged both these orders before this Court in the present writ petition. I have heard
the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent no.2. I have gone
through the impugned judgment and order and also the documents filed on record.

05] On going through the documents placed on record including the complaint, application at
Exh.31 and the impugned orders, I find that no case has been made out by the petitioner to make
any interference with the impugned orders. Interference with the impugned orders in exercise of the
writ jurisdiction would be possible only when it is shown by the petitioner that the impugned orders
are manifestly illegal or are likely to result in great injustice in the nature of deprivation of legal
rights of the petitioner. 06] In the present case, according to the complaint filed by respondent no.2,
two cheques dated 21/10/2014 and 27/10/2014 were issued for Rs.80,000/- each in favour of
respondent no.2 and they were so issued in discharge of the debt of Rs.1,60,000/- owed by the
petitioner to respondent no.2. The complaint also discloses that the first cheque was dishonoured on
25/10/2014 and the second cheque on 28/10/2014. But the fact remains that these cheques were
issued for discharging one and the same debt by the petitioner, as alleged in the complaint.
Therefore, even though they were dishonoured on different dates, such dishonour would not
constitute separate causes of action and it cannot be said that two separate offences were so
committed as not to be part of one and the same transaction. The reason being that they were issued
for discharging one and the same debt and to the same party and that they were founded on the
same basic cause of action, which was the debt of Rs.1,60,000/- alleged to be incurred by the
petitioner towards respondent no.2. Under Section 220(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if in
one series of acts which are so connected with each other as to form the same transaction, more
offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial
for, every such offence. As just stated, in the present case, the acts of dishonour of two cheques have
been committed by the same person, they have been committed also against the same person and
they are connected with each other in a manner as to form the same transaction, which was the
transaction of discharge of overall debt of Rs.1,60,000/-. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or
arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order by which the application vide Exh.31 filed by the
petitioner has been rejected.

07] It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that a great prejudice is likely to be caused to the
defence of the petitioner by such joinder of charges in one trial. This has been disagreed to the
learned Counsel for respondent no.2. I think, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2 is right in
expressing his such a disagreement. Reason being that the charge will be framed by the trial Court in
such a manner as would contain two heads of offence relating to dishonour of two different cheques,
and I would say that the trial Court would be well advised to do so. If this is done, the petitioner
would get an ample opportunity to defend himself against the two heads of offence with which he
would be charged in this case and would be in a position to prepare adequately on his defence. If it is
the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner would like to advance two different kinds of

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/109803707/ 2

 Umakant S/O. Dattatray ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Police ... on 6 February, 2018

defence for dishonour of these two separate cheques, even then, I do not think that any impediment
in this regard would be encountered by the petitioner for the reason that the complainant would
have to adduce evidence in a specific manner to prove these two different heads of offence and that
will result in giving sufficient notice of allegations being made against the petitioner, which shall be
enough for him to put up his different stands of defence in respect of these two separate offences.
But, these two offences, as stated earlier, having been committed in one and the same transaction,
would certainly require a joint trial with the aid of Section 220 of Cr.P.C., which is also a view taken
in this case by the Courts below and rightly so.

08] This is also the view taken by the Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Manjula
vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. reported in 2007(2) ALL MR (JOURNAL) 11 relied upon by the
learned Counsel for respondent no.2, in which facts were substantially similar.

09] However, the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Smt. Mumedha
w/o Sunil Chitpur vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 3232 on
facts, would not be applicable to the present case, as a specific finding was recorded by the learned
Single Judge that dishonour of the three cheques did not constitute a single transaction attracting
the provisions of Section 219 of Cr.P.C.

10] In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed. The
writ petition stands dismissed.

(S.B. Shukre, J.) *sdw

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/109803707/ 3