Section 220 CrPC | Trial Court Has Discretion To Decide Whether Or Not To Order Joint Trial: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently held that it is not obligatory for the court to conduct a joint trial under Section 220 of the CrPC as it is the discretion of the court to allow a joint trial or not.

A single bench of Justice V G Arun was considering a matter pertaining to certain disputes that arose between partners of a firm. The Court had referred the parties to mediation and the matter was settled on the term that one of the partners (2nd Petitioner) would pay Rs. 2 Crores to the Respondent as full and final settlement in 32 instalments.

Some of the cheques paid to the respondent got dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and some got dishonoured due stop payment. The respondent subsequently filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Seven cases were instituted by the respondent in this regard, and the accused filed a petition for joint trial of the cases. This petition for joint trial was refused by the magistrate. The accused then approached the High Court against the order of the Magistrate.

The Magistrate had observed that as all the cheques bear different dates and since they have been dishonoured on different dates, taking of composite evidence would lead to confusion. The court refused joint trial to allow for better appreciation of evidence.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that according to the proviso to Section 218 of CrPC the Magistrate has the power to order a joint trial if the accused will not be prejudiced by it. It was also contended by the petitioner that under Section 220(1) if more than one offence is committed by the same person, in a series of acts that form part of the same transaction, then all such offences can be tried in one single trial. The petitioner argued that since the cheques were issued as part of the settlement between the parties, it forms part of the same transaction and hence they had to be tried together.

However, the respondent argued that the cause of action is different for every case, since each cheque has a different date and was presented and dishonoured on different dates and notices were issued on different dates and hence it cannot form part of the same transaction.

The High Court observed that the cause of action for each case was different:

“8 cheques bear different dates and were presented and dishonoured on different dates. The statutory notices were also issued on different dates. Consequently, the cause of action for filing the complaint, viz; failure of the drawer to make payment within the stipulated time, after receipt of statutory notice issued under proviso (b) of Section 138 of the Act, are also different. The complaints were therefore filed based on different cause of actions, pertaining to offences in relation to each individual cheque.”

The High Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as the Magistrate had rightly concluded that a joint trial would not be feasible.

Counsel for Petitioners: Adv. S.Rajeev S, Adv V.Vinay, Adv M.S.Aneer, Adv Prerith Philip Joseph, Adv Sarath K.P

Counsel for Respondents: Adv. PMohandas, Adv. P K Sudhinkumar, Adv. Sabu Pullan Adv. Gokul D Sudhakara, Adv. R Bhaskara Krishnan, Sr. Adv. K P Satheesan

Case Title: M/S De-Fab V Priya Varma

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

Click here to read/download judgment