IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 19574 of 2008(E) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN CC 907/04 & CC101/05 IN CC.396/2002 of J.M.F.C.-I,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ PHARMA KURIES LIMITED PUTHOOR BUILIDINGS, BROTHERS LINE, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEBASTIAN THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, PUOTHOOOR HOUSE, THOLOOR VILLAGE, PARAPPUR THRISSUR,REP. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, C.K.VARGHESE,S/O.KOCHU DEVASSY BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M/S. SREEPOORNA ROLLER MILLS (P) LTD. P.B.NO. 810, 17/56, POONTHOLE, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR T.P.VISWANATHAN 2. T.P.VISWANATHAN MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. SREEPOORNA ROLLER MILLS (P) LTD. RESIDING AT SANKAR NIVAS, 29/199 SHORNNUR ROAD THRISSUR 3. T.P.PARAMESWARAN , DIRECTOR M/S. SREEPOORNA ROLLER MILLS (P) LTD. RESIDING AT SANKAR NIVAS, 29/199 SHORNNUR ROAD THRISSUR 4. T.P. GEETHA, DIRECTOR M/S. SREEPOORNA ROLLER MILLS (P) LTD. RESIDING AT SANKAR NIVAS, 29/199 SHORNNUR ROAD THRISSUR 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY G.P. SRI. GIKKU JACOB. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.BALAN FOR R1 TO 4 SMT.VIJUBALA FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 19574 of 2008-E ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the complainant in three prosecutions – 2 under Sec.420 IPC and the other under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents/accused. Four respondents are accused in two such prosecutions; whereas only respondents 1 and 4 are the accused in one of the three cases. The petitioner prayed that all the three cases may be consolidated and a common charge may be raised. 2. The said prayer was stoutly opposed by the respondents. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order did not permit consolidation of charges in these three complaints and directed that separate trials must be conducted. W.P.(c) No. 19574 of 2008-E -: 2 :- 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the interests of justice and to avoid unnecessary and needless repetition of work, the prayer of the petitioner for consolidation of allegations and conduct of a common trial must have been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that consolidation of the charges and conduct of a common trial would seriously prejudice the interests of the respondents/accused. He points out that in the prosecution under Sec.420 IPC warrant procedure is to be followed; whereas in the prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act summary/ summons trial procedure can be followed. He further points out that the averments in the complaints would show that the three cases are in respect of the transactions in three different accounts and that consolidation of the charges would seriously prejudice the interests of the respondents/accused. 4. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I find merit in the opposition by the learned counsel for the respondents. I am not persuaded to agree that, in the facts and W.P.(c) No. 19574 of 2008-E -: 3 :- circumstances of this case, there is any need for consolidation of the trial in the three cases. 5. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 19574 of 2008-E -: 4 :-