Kerala High Court
M/S. Spectrum Hi-Style Shoppers Pvt. ... vs Abdul Rauf Km on 24 March, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:27423
CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED IN ST NO.319 OF 2020 OF JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD
PETITIONERS:
1 M/S. SPECTRUM HI-STYLE SHOPPERS PVT. LTD.
AGED 50 YEARS
DOOR NO 3, G1, REDDY PALAYAM ROAD, MOGAPPAIR, WEST
CHENNAI, CHENNAI, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
600037
2 HARRY WILLIAM
AGED 50 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. SPECTRUM HI-STYLE SHOPPERS PVT.
LTD. RESIDING AT NO. 17/9, KARANEESWARAR KOIL 1ST LANE,
KARANEESWARAR PURAM, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI, PIN - 600004
3 NALINI RAVI
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. HARRY WILLIAM, RESIDING AT NO. 17/9, KARANEESWARAR
KOIL 1ST LANE, KARANEESWARAR PURAM, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI,
PIN - 600004
BY ADVS.
SHRI.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH
SHRI.P.PRAMEL
SMT.VARSHA VIJAYAKUMAR NAIR
SMT.RAJASREE K.
SMT.NIDHI SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ABDUL RAUF KM
2026:KER:27423
CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 2
S/O. MAMMI BH, RAHATH MANZIL PUTHIYA ROAD, VENNALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROCECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:27423
CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 3
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2026
ORDER
The petitioners are the accused in S.T. No.319/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakkanad, ('Trial Court', in short) which has been filed by the 1st respondent alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act' for short).
2. The petitioners have stated in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case that, the 1st petitioner is a company and petitioners 2 and 3 are its Managing Director and Director, respectively. The 1st respondent 2026:KER:27423 CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 4 has filed 21 complaints against the petitioners alleging the commission of the above offence on the ground that the cheques issued by the petitioners got dishonored due to insufficiency of funds in the 1 st petitioner's bank account. All the 21 complaints arise out of the same transaction. The evidence to be let in the complaints is one and the same. Earlier, the 1 st respondent had filed Annexure-A application for the consolidation and joint trial of 19 complaints, which was partly allowed by the Trial Court as per Annexure- B order. It is after the passing of the above order that the petitioners filed Annexure-C application. However, by the impugned Annexure-D order, the Trial Court has dismissed the application on the finding that 21 complaints cannot be jointly tried as it would cause hardship in pronouncing the judgment. Annexure-D order is erroneous and wrong. Hence the Crl.M.C. 2026:KER:27423 CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 5
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that there is no legal prohibition in ordering the joint trial of all the 21 complaints. Prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the joint trial is not permitted because the petitioners would have to reveal their defence. Moreover, as the parties are the same and the cheques have been issued in respect of the very same transaction, it would be convenient for the parties and would save judicial time. The learned counsel relies on the decision of this Court in Shibi @ Jibi Shony v. Chalakudy Town Financiers, Thrissur and Another [2017 KHC 682] and a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sh. Charashni Kumar Talwani v. Malhotra Poultries [2014 KHC 3295] in support of his 2026:KER:27423 CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 6 contention. He prays that Annexure -D order may be set aside.
5. The 1st respondent has filed 21 complaints against the petitioners alleging the commission of the above offence.
6. Admittedly, the 1st respondent had filed Annexure A application for the joint trial of 19 complaints. By Annexure B order, the Trial Court, after considering the scope and purport of Section 219 CrPC, partly allowed the application by ordering the consolidation and joint trial of the 19 complaints in the following manner:
1 S.T.No.319/2020, S.T.No.423/2020 and
S.T.No. 424/2020.2 S.T.No.326/2020 and S.T.No.327/2020 3 S.T.No.320/2020, S.T.No.321/2020 and
S.T.No. 322/2020.4 S.T.No.323/2020, S.T.No.324/2020 and
S.T.No. 325/2020.
2026:KER:27423
CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 7
5 S.T.No.409/2020, S.T.No.425/2020 and
S.T.No. 410/2020.
6 S.T.No.514/2020, S.T.No.515/2020 and
S.T.No.516/2020.
7 S.T.No.517/2020 and S.T.No.422/2020.
7. Annexure B order was passed on 13.12.2024.
Neither the 1st respondent nor the petitioners have challenged the order. It is after the complaints were listed for trial that the petitioners have filed with Annexure C application for the consolidation and joint trial of the 21 complaints, on the assertion that they would have to reveal their defence in the first set of cases, and the same would cause prejudice to the petitioners. This according to me is misconceived and wrong.
8. In the above context, it is profitable to refer to Section 219 of Cr.P.C, which reads as follows :
" Section 219 2026:KER:27423 CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 8 Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local laws:
Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence."
9. A reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that only three offences committed within a space of twelve months can be tried at one trial.
10. It is following the statutory frame work that the Trial Court passed Annexure B order by ordering the 2026:KER:27423 CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 9 trial of 3/2 complaints. The contention that the separate trial of complaints would cause prejudice to the petitioners is not a ground to order them to tried jointly against the statutory mandate. I do not find any illegality or error in Annexure D order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference by this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS.
The Crl.M.C is meritless and is consequently dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial as per Annexure B order.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS,JUDGE SCB/23.03.26 2026:KER:27423 CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 10 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 2570 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-A TRUE COPY OF THE CRL. M. P. NO. 1302 OF 2024 IN ST NO. 319 OF 2020 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT KAKKANAD Annexure-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2024 IN CRL. M. P. NO. 1302 OF 2024 IN ST NO. 319 OF 2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT.
Annexure-C TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT TRIAL PETITION CRL.M.P. NO. 4281 OF 2025 IN ST NO. 319 OF 2020 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT KAKKANAD Annexure-D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 IN CRL. M. P. NO. 4281 OF 2025 IN ST NO. 319 OF 2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT.