The Karnataka High Court has clarified that Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not mandate a joint trial for separate cheque dishonour cases simply because the accused is common in both. The decision was rendered by Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar in a criminal petition filed by one Puttanagouda, who had sought a single trial for two cases registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Puttanagouda, facing prosecution in two different cheque bounce cases (C.C. Nos. 2215/2021 and 2216/2021) before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, filed an application under Section 219 of CrPC. He argued that since both alleged offences occurred within a 12-month period and concerned the same nature of offence, they should be jointly tried. One case was filed by Kubergouda and the other by Channabasappa, each relating to different transactions.
The trial court rejected the application, and the same was upheld in revision. Consequently, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to overturn both decisions and club the trials in the interest of justice.
However, Justice Amarannavar found no merit in the petition.
“The rule is that for every distinct offence there should be a separate charge, and every such charge should be tried separately,” the court observed while reiterating the general principle under Section 218 of CrPC.
The judge elaborated that while Section 219 allows a joint trial for up to three offences of the same kind committed within a year, it does not override the requirement that there must be some commonality in facts or transactions. In the present case, apart from the accused being the same, there was nothing linking the two cases.
It may be true that the offence in the two cases is of the same kind. The common factor is only that the petitioner is the accused in the two cases. For that reason alone, it cannot be contended that the two complaints filed by two different complainants under different set of circumstances have to be tried at one trial, the court clarified.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Clears Infosys Co-Founder Kris Gopalakrishnan of False FIR Allegations
The High Court emphasized that each complainant has a right to prosecute their case independently and that combining trials where facts and parties differ could compromise those rights.
The petitioner also invoked Section 220 of CrPC, arguing that both offences should be treated as a single transaction. Rejecting this argument, the court held:
“What is contemplated in Section 220 is a joint charge and one trial for more than one offence if they are committed in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. That is not the case here.”
The Court also referred to the Kerala High Court’s decision in Sidhardhan vs. Prasannan, which had dealt with a similar issue and upheld the Magistrate’s decision to conduct separate trials.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court found no legal flaw or irregularity in the orders passed by the lower courts and dismissed the petition.
“There are no grounds to allow this petition,” Justice Amarannavar stated, affirming that the applications were rightly dismissed by the Magistrate.
Read Also:-Karnataka High Court Issues Notice on PIL Alleging Violation of Religious Rights During CET Exams
Appearance:
Advocate Vidyashankar G Dalwai appeared for the petitioner, while Advocates Rajashekhar Burji and S.M. Kotambari represented the respondent.
Case Title: Puttanagouda vs. Kubergouda
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 102651 of 2023
Date of Judgment: April 21, 2025
Court: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Judge: Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar
