Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is the sole Accused. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. Against the petitioner. The petitioner has come forward with this petition to quash the said complaint. 2. The allegations in the complaint are:-The respondent/complainant had entered into a Memorandum of Sale Agreement dated 26.03.2008 and it was registered on 27.03.2008. As per the terms of the said Memorandum the respondent/complainant had agreed to purchase 19 residential apartments in the property bearing Corporation No.45 PID No.96-310-45 Survey No.28/4 part of Viswanatha Nagenathalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Pursuant to the said agreement, certain apartments were sold. Subsequently, regarding the remaining unsold apartments by mutual consent a Cancellation of Memorandum of Sale Agreement was executed between the parties on 27.4.2011. Pursuant to the said cancellation of memorandum of sale agreement dated 27.4.2011, the petitioner had issued four cheques dated 27.07.2011 drawn on Vysya Bannk, New Tharagupet, Bangalore for a sum of Rs.19,05,700/-, Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively to the total value of Rs.71,05,700/-. When the said cheques were presented for collection and returned on the grounds of "Funds Insufficient". Therefore, statutory notice was issued. Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed by the respondent and it was taken cognizance by the learned Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.4453 of 2011 and now it is pending on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai. 3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused is that as per Section 219 Cr.P.C., more than three cheques cannot be clubbed together in one complaint, the complaint is not filed in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order dated 15.3.2011, passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.701 to 729 of 2007 in the case of M/s. Agate Finance Limited vs. M/s. L.S.P.Agro Limited and others, wherein this Court after referring the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manjula vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. held that as per Section 219 Cr.P.C., there can be joinder of only three offences and not more than that. Hence, he prays that the complainant has to be quashed. 4. Hence, he prays that the complainant has to be quashed. 4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant contended that the cheques have been issued by the petitioner/accused on the same date on the basis of agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent and the said cheques have been presented for collection and returned on one and the same date and since it is bundle of facts giving rise to a cause of action, the complaint filed by the complainant is sustainable in law. The learned senior counsel for the respondent relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006-2 L.W. (Crl.) 851 in the case of Manjula vs. M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, to substantiate his contention. It is useful to extract the relevant portion of the said judgment which runs as follows: "The offences committed by the same person in respect of 16 cheques must certainly be held to be part of the same transaction considering the purpose, the sequence, events, nature of the allegation, proximity of commission, unity of action etc., 219 (1) Cr.P.C. permits joinder of all charges provided they are offences of the same kind, the number of transactions and the cheques issued prior to the issuance of the statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Act could at best be considered as bundle of facts giving rise to a cause of action. Relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the respondent prays that the petition has to be dismissed. 5. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/accused issued four cheques dated 27.7.2011 for a sum of Rs.19,05,700/-, Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/- and Rs.20,00,000/-respectively to the total value of Rs.71,05,700/-and the said cheques have been returned when presented for collection on the grounds of "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, statutory notice was issued and thereafter, the present complaint has been filed by the respondent and it was taken cognizance by the learned Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.4453 of 2011 and now it is pending on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai. The above facts are all not in dispute. 7. Thereafter, statutory notice was issued and thereafter, the present complaint has been filed by the respondent and it was taken cognizance by the learned Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.4453 of 2011 and now it is pending on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai. The above facts are all not in dispute. 7. Now, the point arises for my consideration is: Whether the four cheques issued by the petitioner on presentation for collection returned is to be considered as bundle of facts giving rise to one cause of action or it is a different cause of action for each of the four cheques has to be seen. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the agreement and contended that as per the said agreement all the four cheques have been issued on 27.7.2011 for various amounts i.e. for a sum of Rs.19,05,700/-, Rs.12,00,000/-, Rs.20,00,000/-and Rs.20,00,000/- respectively to the total value of Rs.71,05,700/-and the said cheques were returned when presented for collection on the grounds of "Funds Insufficient". Therefore, statutory notice was issued and thereafter, the present complaint has been filed by the respondent and it was taken cognizance by the learned Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.4453 of 2011 and now it is pending on the file of the Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of this Court wherein this Court has also in Crl.Appeal Nos. 701 to 729 of 2007 dated 15.3.2011 in the case of M/s. Agate Finance Limited vs. M/s. L.S.P.Agro Limited and others, after referring the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006-2 L.W. (Crl.) 851 in the case of Manjula vs. M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, held that as per Section 219 Cr.P.C., more than three cases cannot be clubbed together. In that case 16 cheques were presented for collection and the same were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. But a single notice was issued demanding the cheque amounts. It was not complied with. In those circumstances, a single complaint was filed in respect of 16 cheques. In that case 16 cheques were presented for collection and the same were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. But a single notice was issued demanding the cheque amounts. It was not complied with. In those circumstances, a single complaint was filed in respect of 16 cheques. When a plea was taken before the Division Bench that as per Section 219 Cr.P.C., there can be joinder of only three offences and not more than that, the Division Bench held that since all the 16 cheques presented to the same transaction and since there was a single notice issued, Section 219 Cr.P.C. is not applicable. But in the referred case a single notice was issued by the complainant on single complaint. But in the case of Agate Finance Limited common evidence was recorded in all the 29 cases by clubbing all the 29 cases together which is not permissible in law and arrived at a conclusion that the entire trial conducted by the learned Magistrate stands vitiated. 9. From the perusal of the records it is seen that in this case, even though all the four cheques dated 27.7.2011 have been presented on the same day in pursuance of the agreement entered into between the parties the said cheques were returned on the same day. Statutory notice has been issued on 5.8.2011. Therefore, I am of the view that the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.Appeal Nos. 701 to 729 of 2007 dated 15.3.2011 (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Whereas in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2006-2 L.W. (Crl.) 851 in the case of Manjula vs. M/s. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, relied on by the learned senior counsel for the respondent, it has been held that 219 (1) Cr.P.C. permits joinder of all charges provided in all cases can be clubbed together since they are offences of the same kind, all are interlinked and interconnected. 10. 10. Therefore, following the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in 2006-2 L.W. (Crl.) 851 (supra) I am of the view that the four cheques dated 27.7.2011 issued by the petitioner was returned on presentation for collection is to be considered as bundle of facts giving rise to single cause of action for since it was presented in view of the written agreement for which one complaint is sufficient. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner/accused is negatived and this petition is dismissed. The learned Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Egmore, Chennai, is directed to proceed with the case in C.C.No.4453 of 2011, against the petitioner/accused in accordance with law.