he Karnataka High Cour tin the case A Adinarayana Reddy AND S Vijayalakshmi & ANR observed and has held that a single complaint made under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is maintainable for multiple cheques issued by the respondent/accused on the same cause of action.
The single bench headed by Justice M Nagaprasanna in the case observed and has allowed the petition filed by complainant A Adinarayana Reddy and set aside the order dismissing the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against accused S Vijayalakshmi and another.
The court stated that when all the cheques are being issued by the husband and wife for the same cause of action and cheques were dishonoured, a common notice was issued against the accused. Thus, instead of filing the multiple complaints, single complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques are maintainable.
The petitioner in the plea argued before the court that as per section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, CrPC, three criminal cases can be tried as one trial and for the same cause of action. Therefore, the court observed that the accused persons were given 5 cheques, who are the husband and wife. Therefore, filing a single complaint is 5 maintainable, instead of filing 5 complaints.
The bench in the case also relied on the supreme court judgement in the case Damodar S Prabhu Vs Syed Babalal, wherein it is held that the same transaction pertaining to a loan taken on an installment basis to be repaid in equated monthly installments, several cheques are taken which are dated for each monthly installment and upon the dishonour of each of such cheques, different complaints are being filed in different courts which may also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has directed that it should be mandatory for the complainant to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and restored the complaint on the file of Magistrate. The counsel, Advocate Sampat Anand Shetty appeared for Petitioner
