Single Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Maintainable For Dishonour Of Multiple Cheques Issued In Same Transaction: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the maintainability of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate arising from the dishonour of four cheques issued towards repayment of a liability.

A Bench of Justice G. Girish, while referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, In Re (2021) observed that “the applicability of Section 220 Cr.PC. in the case of a single complaint relating to the dishonour of multiple cheques issued by the accused in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision”.

Background

The accused had issued multiple cheques on different dates towards repayment of a monetary liability. Upon presentation, the cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued a consolidated statutory notice demanding payment of the entire amount covered by all cheques. A partial payment was made thereafter, but the remaining amounts remained unpaid.

Consequently, the complainant instituted a single criminal complaint before the Magistrate for dishonour of the remaining cheques. The accused objected to maintainability, contending that each dishonoured cheque constitutes a distinct offence requiring separate complaints and separate trials. Reliance was placed on precedent dealing with the consolidation of cases.

The Magistrate rejected the objection, holding that failure to comply with a consolidated notice constituted a single cause of action. This order was challenged before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking the quashing of proceedings.

Court’s Observation

The Court first examined the statutory scheme governing joinder of charges. Section 218 CrPC embodies the general rule that every distinct offence must be tried separately. However, the provision itself recognises exceptions through Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223. The Court emphasised that these provisions must be read harmoniously rather than in isolation.

It noted that Section 219 permits joint trial of up to three offences of the same kind committed within twelve months, but that provision was not directly applicable because the present case involved four offences. The relevant provision, instead, was Section 220, which allows a joint trial where multiple offences arise from “one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction.”

To interpret this expression, the Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Balbir v. State of Haryana and Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar, which laid down that proximity of time, continuity of action, unity of purpose, and common design are relevant factors for determining whether acts constitute the same transaction. These principles, the Court noted, establish that the concept cannot be rigidly defined and must be assessed on facts.

Applying these tests, the Court found that the issuance of several cheques towards repayment of one liability, followed by dishonour and non-payment despite a single statutory demand notice, clearly constituted a connected series of acts with a common purpose. Therefore, the requirements of Section 220 CrPC stood satisfied.

The Court further relied on Supreme Court guidance in In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act, recognising that several cheque dishonour offences forming part of the same transaction may be tried jointly. It clarified that earlier precedent cited by the petitioner dealt with consolidation of separate complaints under Section 219 and not with the permissibility of a single complaint under Section 220, and therefore was factually distinguishable.

The Bench also referred to a prior decision of the same High Court, which had upheld a single prosecution involving multiple cheques issued in the course of the same transaction. The Delhi High Court had adopted a similar approach in a comparable factual scenario.

Having analysed statutory provisions, precedent, and facts, the Court concluded that “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”.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the prosecution initiated through a single complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques issued as part of the same transaction was valid in law.

Finding no merit in the challenge, it dismissed the petition seeking quashing of proceedings and upheld the Magistrate’s order allowing the prosecution to continue.

Cause Title: Balachandran v. Sajan Mathew & State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:13892)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocates S. Ranjit, Gokul Das V.V.H.

Respondents: Advocates Liji J. Vadakedom, Rajeev Jyothish George, Rexy Elizabeth Thomas, Anju Davis K., with Sudheer G. (Public Prosecutor)

Click here to read/download Judgment