1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1069/2008 M/S. VASUNDHARA MARBLE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER. DATE OF ORDER : 03-11-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, for Petitioner (s) Mr. O. P.Rathi, P.P., for the State. Mr. Mrinmay Bhattmewara for Mr. P.R.Mehta, for Respondent. Petitioner accused on complaint of respondent No.1 is facing two separate trials for the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act and preferring this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., requests (for quashing of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 2.7.08), one trial may be ordered. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that (1) for dishonour of Cheque No.115828 dated 12.3.03 - amount Rs.1,50,000/-, regular criminal case No.487/03 for the offence under Section 138, N.I. Act, is pending before the Court of ACJM, Udaipur. (2) For Cheque No.115827 that is the number less than above and of Rs.1,50,000/- alleging dishonour on 26.2.03, other case No.483/03 is pending trial before the same Court. (3) As per provisions of Section 219, Cr.P.C., for the incident of the offences of same kind committed within a period of 12 months are to be charged together and tried at one trial. (4) Separate cases instituted only to harras and prejudice the petitioner. (5) Witnesses and nature of evidence is same for both cases. On behalf of the petitioner argued that the petitioner's application under Section 219, Cr.P.C., requesing for one and the same trial is wrongly dismissed by the learned Magistrate. In support of contentions, reliance is placed on (i) 2008 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 459, Kamal Garg v. State & Another and (ii) 2008 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 942, Radha Krishna Dang v. Indrajeet Bilandi. On behalf of petitioner requested that in the interest of justice, for both cheques one case and trial be directed. Learned counsel for the respondent complainant argued that right 2 from beginning, both the cases are being tried separately – separate trial at advanced stage in one case case defence is over and - both the cases are posted for final arguments. Argued that if application is accepted, this will prolong proceeding. Argued that provisions of Section 219 cannot be invoked at such a belated stage. Considered and perused the order of the learned Magistrate. It seems that both the alleged dishonours occurred in the same month , if not in same date. In the impugned order dated 2.7.08, it is clearly mentioned that both the cases tried separately are beyond the stage of evidence. As per provisions of Section 219, Cr.P.C., for the three offences of same kind, if committed within space of tweleve months can be only one trial. In one trial, he may be charged with all the three offences of the same kind committed within twelve months. The provision seems to be facilitating or enabling one – certainly cannot be deemed to be mandatory at the fag-end of separate trials. Status of both the cases as mentioned in the impugned order,(i.e., beyond the defence) is not controverted. If now charges are directed to be framed only in one trial, then afresh evidence may be necessary. The impugned order also mentions that the case received on transfer from above Court. It appears that cases are pending for morel than four years and as above, at advance stage. For both the trials, the petitioner (and also respondent) was knowing right from beginning. Considering all above and as the cases are well at advance stage, no case for any direction under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner may raise all the objections at an appropriate stage. Learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of both the cases as far as possible (separately but on the same day). This order shall not affect any rights of the parties and above observations, if any, are only for and in context of this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. scd (C. M. TOTLA), J. 3