Manivannan and S. Krishnamoorthy vs P.R. Adhikesavan

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Criminal Original Petition No. 2326 of 2007 is filed seeking quashment of the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 44

of 2003 and Crl.O.P. No. 2327 of 2003 is filed seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.382 of 2002 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee.

The petitioners face the charges under Sections 410, 411, 414, 415, 420 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code alone with other accused in C.C.

No. 382 of 2002. The petitioners are also facing a case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No. 44 of 2003.

The case of the respondent/complainant is that the petitioners, who are closely related; to the complainant, took away the Maruti Van of the

respondent on permission lithe guise of paying visit to their relatives. They never returned the vehicle as promised, but, they entered into an

agreement of sale with the third accused and thereafter sold the vehicle to the fourth accused, who in turn, sold the same to the fifth accused in

C.C. No. 382 of 2002. The said occurrence took place during the first week of August 2001. Thereafter, the respondent laid a complaint on

31.12.2001 with the police concerned. As they had not taken any action on the complaint, the respondent had to approach this Court seeking a

direction to register the case invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the case was closed as mistake of fact

by the police concerned, the respondent, having left with no other option, laid a private complaint which culminated in C.C. No. 382 of 2002 on

the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, same transaction are not sustainable in the eye of law.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the petitioners having agreed to settle the amount due to the respondent

before the Lok Adalat, have chosen to back out after making payment of Rs. 75,000/- in various instalments. He would further submit that the

case of cheating has a different cause of action and issuance of the cheque which, culminated in the dishonour has a totally different cause of action

and therefore, there is nothing wrong in laying two complaints for those two cause of actions.

As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the first set of cause of action has arisen in the first week of August 2001 and

the subsequent cause of action for laying a private complaint for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has arisen long

thereafter when the three cheques allegedly issued by the respondent bounced on presentation. Further, cheating and the dishonour of the cheques

are distinct offences. Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would read that for every distinct offence, there shall be a separate charge

and every such charge shall be tried Poonamallee.

The further case of the respondent is that the petitioners herein who figure as A1 and A2 in both the cases originally tendered three cheques and

a demand draft even during the month of August 2001. Those three cheques returned dishonoured on presentation by the respondent. But, the

respondent did encash the demand draft given by the petitioners for a sum of Rs. 17,500/- and appropriated the same towards the tools kept in

the vehicle. The petitioners, having not paid the price of the car which was sold away, coolly left three cheques just before laying the private

complaint which ultimately culminated in C.C. No. 382 of 2002. Those three cheques given by the petitioners were returned dishonoured on

presentation for payment and therefore, the respondent was constrained to file the criminal complaint which culminated in C.C. No. 44 of 2003.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that one transaction spoken to by the respondent has been split into two and two

cases have been laid, one for the offences punishable under, Sections 410, 411, 414, 415, 420 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code and another for

offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that therefore, these two complaints laid for the very separately. Therefore, for

the distinct offences, the respondent is entitled to lay two different complaints.

Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would contemplate that if more offences than one are committed by the same set of persons in

one series of acts, so connected together as to form the very same transaction, then such, persons may be tried at one trial for every such offence.

But the option provided u/s 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been given to the complaint and the prosecuting agency Sad not to the

accused. If series of acts have been committed during the same transaction, the accused can be either tried separately or tried for all the series of

acts he has committed in one trial. But, here, in this case, the alleged, issuance of the cheque subsequently for the sale consideration of the Maruti

Vehicle, allegedly alienated by the petitioners will not constitute, same transaction inasmuch as the alleged offences under Sections 410, 411, 414,

415, 420 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code have already been completed before ever the alleged issuance of the cheques by the petitioners. Even

for the sake of argument if it is accepted that both the acts alleged are so connected together to form the very same transaction, it is not always

necessary that there should be only one complaint as against the accused. As already pointed out by this court, trying a series of acts which form

the very same transaction committed by the accused is the sole discretion of the court concerned.

In view of the above, the petitioner cannot sustain the petitions seeking quashment on the ground that for the very same transaction, two different

complaints have been laid by the respondent.

Dismissing both the petition-seeking quashment, the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Poonamallee is directed to try both the cases separately and

complete the trial of both the cases within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions also

stand dismissed.