IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-573 of 2010(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: November 15, 2011 Surjit Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Gurcharan Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order shall dispose of Crl Misc. Nos.M-15234 and 34844 of 2010. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 6.11.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samrala. The prayer is made by the petitioner for clubbing two separate complaint cases registered against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the purpose of trial. The petitioner has sought clubbing of these two separate complaint cases on the basis of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. As per the counsel for the petitioner, Section 219 Cr.P.C. makes a provision for joining three offences of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months, from the first to the last of Crl. Misc. No. M-573 of 2010(O&M) -2- such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, for being charged and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding three. This provision apparently gives a discretion to the prosecution to frame charge in a case, where more than one offence of the same kind is committed by an accused person, which could be charged together in one charge. Whether the accused would have any right to seek clubbing of the cases where separate complaint leads to summoning of the petitioner for separate offences sounds debatable. The petitioner is facing separate trial before same Court. The trial Court has noted some valid reasons for not clubbing these cases together under Section 219 Cr.P.C. Otherwise, it is conceded before me that both the cases are being tried simultaneously by the same Court. The petitioner even if is awarded some separate sentences in these two cases has a right to seek the sentences to run concurrently, if permissible. I do not see any justification for interfering in the impugned order as passed. The petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. November 15, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE