Section 138 NI Act | Where Cheques Form Part of One Series of Acts, Section 220 Cr.PC Permits Joint Trial: Kerala High Court

“Four Cheques, One Debt, One Trial”, In a reportable judgment Justice G. Girish of the Kerala High Court upheld the maintainability of a single complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the dishonour of four cheques issued towards discharge of a common liability.

The Court authoritatively held that when multiple cheques are issued as part of “one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction,” prosecution through a single complaint is legally sustainable under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The challenge under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking quashment of the complaint was rejected.

Can Four Dishonoured Cheques Be Prosecuted in One Case?

At the very outset, the Court framed the precise legal issue in clear terms:

“Can there be a criminal prosecution for the commission of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a single complaint for the dishonour of four cheques for which the complainant had issued a consolidated single notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act?”

The petitioner-accused was being prosecuted for dishonour of four cheques issued towards repayment of a total liability of Rs.3,00,000/-. A consolidated statutory notice under Section 138(b) was issued demanding payment of all cheque amounts. After partial payment, the complainant proceeded with prosecution for the remaining four cheques through a single complaint.

The accused contended that four distinct dishonours constituted four separate offences which could not be consolidated in one complaint.

Section 218 Cr.PC – The General Rule of Separate Charges

Justice Girish first examined Section 218 Cr.PC, which mandates that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge and separate trial. However, the Court emphasized that this general rule is expressly made subject to Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 Cr.PC.

Section 219 permits joint trial of not more than three offences of the same kind committed within 12 months. Since the present case involved four cheques, Section 219 was held inapplicable.

The decisive provision, therefore, was Section 220 Cr.PC.

“Same Transaction” – The Governing Test Under Section 220

Section 220 Cr.PC allows joint trial if multiple offences arise out of “one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Balbir v. State of Haryana and Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar, where it was held that proximity of time, unity of purpose, continuity of action and common design are relevant factors.

Quoting from Balbir, the Court reiterated:

“For several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect… so as to result in one continuous action.”

Further, from Mohan Baitha, the Court highlighted that the expression “same transaction” cannot be given a rigid definition and must be assessed based on common sense, continuity of action and community of purpose.

Applying these principles, the Court found no difficulty in concluding that issuance of four cheques towards discharge of a single debt, their dishonour, and failure to pay despite a consolidated notice, constituted one connected series of acts forming the same transaction.

The Court observed that “there is absolutely no room for any doubt as to the applicability of Section 220 Cr.PC in the present case.”

Vani Agro Distinguished – Reliance Misplaced

The petitioner relied heavily on Vani Agro Enterprises v. State of Gujarat, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the Kerala High Court carefully distinguished that decision.

In Vani Agro, four separate complaints had been filed and the issue concerned consolidation of those complaints under Section 219 Cr.PC. The Gujarat High Court had held that joint trial of more than three cases was impermissible under Section 219.

Justice Girish clarified that the present case was fundamentally different because only a single complaint had been filed from the outset.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of NI Act, In re (2021) 16 SCC 116, where it was categorically held:

“There is no ambiguity in Section 220 in accordance with which several cheques issued as a part of the same transaction can be the subject-matter of one trial.”

The Supreme Court had expressly observed that offences committed as part of the same transaction can be tried jointly under Section 220 Cr.PC, notwithstanding the restriction in Section 219.

Thus, reliance on Vani Agro was held to be misconceived.

Single Consolidated Notice – Reinforcing Unity of Transaction

An additional factor noted by the Court was the issuance of a single consolidated statutory notice under Section 138(b) covering all cheques. The failure to comply with that notice triggered the cause of action.

This reinforced the finding that the offences were interconnected and arose from one continuous transaction.

Section 482 Cr.PC – No Ground for Quashing

The Magistrate had rejected the accused’s objection to maintainability. The High Court found no illegality in that reasoning.

In view of the settled legal position and the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Expeditious Trial of Cases, the petition under Section 482 Cr.PC was held to be devoid of merit.

The Court accordingly dismissed CRL.MC No. 4832 of 2020, permitting the proceedings in S.T. No. 143/2019 to continue.

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed an important procedural principle in cheque dishonour litigation: when multiple cheques are issued in discharge of a single liability and form part of the same transaction, prosecution through a single complaint is legally sustainable under Section 220 Cr.PC.

The ruling brings clarity to the interplay between Sections 218, 219 and 220 Cr.PC and aligns with the Supreme Court’s emphasis on expeditious and pragmatic handling of Section 138 cases.

The decision strengthens judicial efficiency by preventing unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings where the factual matrix reflects unity of transaction.

Date of Decision: 18/02/2026