Single Complaint Can Be Maintained U/S 138 NI Act For Dishonour Of Multiple Cheques Issued in Same Transaction: Kerala High Court

Justice G Girish dismissed a petition challenging the maintainability of a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act based on four dishonoured cheques covered by a consolidated statutory notice.

The Court examined whether a single criminal complaint can be maintained under Section 138 of the NI Act for the dishonour of four cheques, when the complainant issued a consolidated notice under Section 138(b).

The petitioner-accused argued that each dishonoured cheque constituted a distinct offence and that four separate complaints were required. Reliance was placed on Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat [2010 (1) KHC 504], which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, to contend that consolidation was impermissible beyond the limits set by Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The Court examined the interplay between Sections 218, 219 and 220 of the CrPC. Section 218 lays down the general rule that each distinct offence must be charged and tried separately. Section 219 permits joint trial of up to three offences of the same kind committed within 12 months while Section 220(1) allows a joint trial for more than one offence if they arise out of “one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction.”

Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Balbir v. State of Haryana [(2000) 1 SCC 285] and Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar[(2001) 4 SCC 350], the High Court reiterated that whether acts form the same transaction depends on factors such as proximity of time, continuity of action,
unity or community of purpose, common design.

The Court noted that the cheques in question had been issued towards repayment of a single liability. Though dishonoured separately, they stemmed from one underlying financial transaction. A consolidated statutory notice was issued demanding payment of the amounts covered by all cheques.

“Going by the parameters dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the term 'series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction', there is absolutely no room for any doubt as to the applicability of Section 220 Cr.PC in the present case. Therefore, the challenge against the maintainability of the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner in a single complaint in connection with the dishonour of the four cheques is legally unsustainable.” Court held.

The Court distinguished Vani Agro Enterprises on facts and law. In that case four separate complaints had already been filed and the issue was whether those separate cases could be consolidated under Section 219 CrPC. The Supreme Court had declined consolidation because Section 219 limits joint trials to three offences of the same kind within 12 months.

In contrast, the present case involved a single complaint from the outset. The High Court emphasized that Vani Agro Enterprises did not negate the applicability of Section 220 CrPC where multiple offences arise from the same transaction.

The Court also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act, In re [(2021) 16 SCC 116], where the it was held the Section 220 CrPC permits a joint trial of multiple cheque dishonour offences if they arise from the same transaction.

The Court thus dismissed the petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the complaint.

Case Title: Balachandran v Sajan Mathew and Anr.

Case No: Crl. M C 4832/ 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 112

Counsel for Petitioner: S Ranjit, Gokul Das V V H

Counsel for Respondents: Liji J Vadakedom, Rajeev Jyothish George, Rexy Elizabeth Thomas, Anju Davis K, Sudheer G (PP)