THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5437 of 2008 ORDER: 1) This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash judgment in C.C.No. 382 of 2003 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2) The petitioner is the accused and the respondents are the complainants in the said calendar case. For convenience sake, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the complaint from now onwards. 3) The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complaint was filed for punishing the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground of dishonouring of seven cheques for Rs.50,000/-, 50,000/-, 1,30,000/-, 50,000/-, 50,000/-, 60,000/- and 30,000/- dated 18.02.2003 drawn on Andhra Bank, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad and Vasavi Cooperative Urban Bank, Begumpet Branch respectively pertaining to one transaction. 4) In the calendar case, after contest, the accused was found guilty of committing the said offence and was convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months with a direction to set off remand period undergone by her from 28.10.2004 to 29.10.2004. Later against that Revision Petition No.82 of 2008 was preferred by the accused and it was dismissed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court, Hyderabad by order dated 20.08.2008. 5) The main point to be examined in this petition is as to whether trying the accused on the ground of dishonouring of seven cheques under one charge is proper or not and whether on that ground, the entire proceedings are vitiated. 6) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that by virtue of Section 219 Cr.P.C. three offences of same kind took place within one year may be charged together and when seven cheques were dishonoured, trying of the accused under one charge is not tenable. 7) Admittedly all the seven cheques pertain to a single transaction and they are said to have been given to the complainants for the purpose of collecting necessary amount. 8) In K.GOVINDRAJ v ASWHIN BARAI[1] under similar circumstances, it was observed that when the cheques were issued with regard to payment of relevant debts covered by one transaction framing of one charge is sufficient for the trial of the accused by virtue of Sections 219 and 220 of Cr.P.C. In N.E.P.C. MICON LTD AND ORS V MAGMA LEASING LTD.[2] also the same observation was made under similar circumstances. Further, in E.MADHU, M/s. KRISHNAVENI FOODS PVT. LTD. V STATE[3] it was observed as follows: “….Separate complaints ought to have been filed in respect of the 20 dishonoured cheques, it is desirable as per the requirements of Sections 218 and 219 of the Code to file separate complaints but it is not a mandatory requirement under law as held by the Apex Court in RANCHOOD LAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (AIR 1965 SC 1248). In identical facts and circumstances this Court in CITY AUTOMOBILES AND ANOTHER v. J.K.INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOTHER (Criminal Petition No.2666 of 2001 and Batch) dated 31.10.2001 has taken the view that issuing a cheque in discharge of a separate debt constitutes a separate offence and although they are all the offences of the same kind since facts do not warrant to conclude that those series of offences have been committed in the course of same transaction one complaint cannot be filed adverting to the provisions of Sections 218, 219, and 220 of the Code, inasmuch as those provisions incorporate a general rule and are not mandatory there is nothing illegal in filing a single complaint nor the trial would be vitiated on account of the same….”. Same observations hold good here. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused are not tenable. 9) The circumstances enumerated make it very clear that this petition has been preferred at a highly belated stage after the accused was found guilty in the calendar case and later the judgment was confirmed in the revision petition. It is nothing but an abuse of process of law on the part of the accused. Therefore, there are no merits in the petition and the petition is dismissed. G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Dt. 07.04.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5437 of 2008 Dt.07.04.2011 [1] 1998 Crl.L.J.22 [2] 1999 (4) crimes 119 [3] 2002 (1) ALT (Crl) 157 (A.P.)