Single trial for multiple cheques bouncing

Now the cheque law is being modified , all the cheque cases will go to ARBITRATION. Effective impletation of law may take time but decison has been made.

Here again Laxminarayanji

You havent answered what I asked

Single Trial for Multiple Cheques

5 cheques towards rent bounced – Single Notice Issued-Cognizance Taken. Trial Commenced. Accused objects to single trial – asks for quashing of Cognizance on the ground that single trail not permitted

Pl help by giving Supreme Court Case Decisions/Citations on Single Trial for multiple Cheques pertaining to same transactions

This problem works from both sides.

A) If you file multiple cases the accused will ask for its consolidation and

B) If you file one case for multiple cheques accused can ask for separate cases.

ON THIS ISSUE THE ACCUSED HAS RIGHT FOR MULTIPLE TRIALS AND MAY GO IN REVISION IF LOWER COURT DO NOT AGREE.

HOWEVER THIS MAY REMAIN IN THEORY SINCE THE CHEQUE LAW IS BEING CHANGED.

CHEQUE LAWS ARE BEING CHANGED.

1)    Most of the banks along with others were misusing the cheque bounce law for recovery of  NPA s.

2)    However reverse started happening.

3)    Cheque bounce law being criminal and technical law so many cases get dismissed due to expert legal assistance.

4)    Even where accused loose the case, the courts order payment in one go otherwise jail terms.

5)    It is not possible for the accused to pay in one go and so either they go first for APPEAL than may be to jail or abscond.

 IN ALL SUCH CASES MONEY IS NOT RECOVERED.

NPA s  started increasing.

6)    Govt has woken up to this dilemma  and have decided to send all cheque bounce cases for ARBITRATION.

7)    NI act will be amended and its effect to come to lower level may take some time .

8)    In the long run it will be great relief to both sides.

9)    Courts were also getting clogged due to cheque cases will also be benefited.

The never ending cycle of more courts, more strict law will also come to an end.

Dear MR ADVOCATE DEFENSE

You are requted to confine yourself to what I have asked in my query and not to dole outr whatever U know or feel about the Ch Return Cases

My Queries are very simple. If u have the answers give it 

If u dont have leave it but dont give irrelevant things

You havent answered what I asked

Single Trial for Multiple Cheques

5 cheques towards rent bounced – Single Notice Issued-Cognizance Taken. Trial Commenced. Accused objects to single trial – asks for quashing of Cognizance on the ground that single trail not permitted

Pl help by giving Supreme Court Case Decisions/Citations on Single Trial for multiple Cheques pertaining to same transactions

You must have hired an advocate please order him to provide the information.

This is a free sight and  so you will get information what is available.

U GET LOST and dont meddle if u r not aware

If U dont have teh knowledge and information KEEP SHUT

This is a beutifule site and there are many learned ADVOCATES here who help out  peple liek me

Mr. Social Worker, Your last post is very "crude" and downright "absurd". U hv no business abusing ADVOCATE DEFENSE. He is an asset to this forum and numerous ppl hv benefited by his advise. So have some decency. 

Well good  and nice of  you Mr Manoj. But this person is only litigant  and may be in over confidence made such comments.

HOWEVER i GET MOST OF THE ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM ADVOCATES WHO HAVE NO PRACTICAL KNOWLDEGE OF ACTUAL COURT ROOM PRACTICE AND JUST PASS COMMENTS OR GIVE OPINIONS JUST TO CONTRADICT ME.

 This is the part of the game and I am not looser since I get more publicity since when others read my comments they instantly find the difference.

MANU/DE/0196/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. M.C. No. 2351/2011

Decided On: 17.01.2012

Appellants: Sharma Contracts (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: State & Anr.

Hon'ble Judges:
Hon'ble Mr. Suresh Kait

Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. Subhasish Mohanty, Adv.

For Respondents/Defendant: Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for State, Mr. J.K. Bhola, Adv. for Respondent No. 2

Subject: Criminal

Acts/Rules/Orders:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138; Code of Criminal Procedural (CrPC), 1860 - Section 219, Code of Criminal Procedural (CrPC), 1860 - Section ; Code of Criminal Procedural (CrPC), 1860 - Section 220(1); Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 379; Indian Penal Code 1860 - section 380

Case Note:

Criminal - Quashing of Summon - Section 219 of Criminal Procedural Code, 1860 (Cr.PC) and Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Present petition filed for quashing of summon issued by trial Court against Petitioner - Held, out of 25 cheques, 14 cheques were dishonoured on different dates for reasons "Exceed Arrangements" - Petitioner had raised legal issue vide instant petition that Respondent No. 2 filed one complaint in regard to all 14 cheques - Vide order trial Court had issued summons to Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 - Petitioner submits that when a person commits more offences than one of same kind committed within a period of 12 months from first to last of such offences whether in respect of same person or not, he might be charged with and tried by one trial for any number of them not exceeding three - Therefore, filing of one complaint against dishonour of 14 cheques was barred by Section 219 of Cr.PC - In Lalit Fabrics Private Limited v. Linkers Associates Limited, wherein it was held that all cheques were of different dates and on presentations, said cheques were dishonoured from time to time for reasons of "Insufficient Funds", could not be said to lose its right to initiate criminal complaint merely on ground that notice related to more than one cheque, such interpretation of Section 219 of Cr.PC would be contrary to very spirit of Section 138 of Act - Therefore, Court was of opinion that notice in respect of more than one cheques disentitles payee to initiate action under Section 138 of Act - Mere reference in complaint to 20 cheques as having been dishonoured could not render complaint bad in law or not maintainable - Order of trial Court issuing summon did not get invalidated on that score - Keeping in view above discussion, Court not inclined to interfere with order passed by trial Court - Accordingly, Petition was dismissed

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kait, J.

1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.4.2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi whereby summons have been issued against the petitioner.

5. Out of 25 cheques as mentioned above, 14 cheques were dishonoured on different dates for the reasons "Exceed Arrangements"

6. The petitioner has raised a legal issue vide the instant petition that respondent No. 2 filed one complaint in regard to all the 14 cheques. Vide order dated 15.4.2011 and 2.7.2011, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3.

18. Keeping in view the above discussion and the settled law in view, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 15th April, 2011.

Thanks a Lot Madhuji

Have you come across some SC Ruling on teh matter?

Mr. Ashok.

This is common plateform to share and discuss our some problems in case some time we people face, rather its best way to find multiple solutions of some particular situations. I feel we all always find best solutions by dicussing here which is available free of cost.

So please do not adopt such a attitude in future which is hearting any body. You can accept any thing which serves your purpose and leave else.

Thank You Singla Ji

i understand and appreaciate your advice

11...In a given case if the consolidated notice is found to provide sufficient information envisaged by the statutory provision and there was a specific demand for the payment of the sum covered by the cheque dishonoured, mere fact that it was a consolidated notice, and/or that further demands In addition to the statutorily envisaged demand was also found to have been made may not invalidate the same. MANU/SC/0821/2003 FACT HIGHLIGHT CASE NOTE HIGHLIGHT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeal Nos. 1136 and 1137 of 2003 Decided On: 09.10.2003 Appellants: K.R. Indira Vs. Respondent: Dr. G. Adinarayana Hon'ble Judges: Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sangeeta Kumar, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Lalita Kaushik, Adv. High Court Status: Followed from High Court Filed vide Criminal Appeal No. 270 of 1996 connected with Criminal Appeal Nos. 271 and 272 of 1996 Decided on: 20.03.2000 (For details Click: MANU/KA/0218/2000) Subject: Criminal Subject: Banking Catch Words: Bank, Banker, Blank Cheque, Charge, Cheque, Cheque Dishonour, Consideration, Credit, Debt, Demand, Dishonour, Dishonoured Cheque, Drawee, Drawer, Endorsement, Good Faith, Holder, Holder in Due Course, Instrument, Interest, Loan, Negotiable, Negotiable Instrument, Payee, Receipt, Sufficient Fund Acts/Rules/Orders: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138 and 139 Cases Referred: Central Bank of India and Anr. v. Saxons Farms and Ors., 1999 (8) SCC 221; Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal and Anr., 2000 (2) SCC 380