JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Since in both the petitions identical questions of law is involved, therefore, both the petitions are being taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. For the sake brevity, to decide the controversy, facts of C 482 No. 99 of 2012 are being taken up. 2. By way of present petition, petitioner is assailing summoning order dated 17.09.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar whereby petitioner was summoned on the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. 3. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that respondent / complainant, herein, filed a complaint against the petitioner, herein, under Section 138 of the NI Act stating therein that petitioner and respondent are relatives and business partners. Petitioner used to borrow money from the complainant/respondent; on the settlement of account, Rs.13,00,000/- were found outstanding towards the petitioner; petitioner issued one cheque bearing no. 100003 of dated 25.02.2011 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and another cheque bearing no. 100004 of dated 25.02.2011 amounting to Rs. 4,00,000/- of HDFC Bank, Ranipur Mod, Jwalapur and two other cheques, in discharge of his financial liability were also issued by the petitioner. An agreement was also executed between the parties on 11.06.2010, which was duly signed by the parties and got notarized; both cheques were deposited in the account of complainant/respondent maintained in State Bank of India, Ranipur, Haridwar on 22.07.2011; both cheques were returned with an endorsement “stop instruction” on 25.07.2011; a statutory notice was got issued by the complainant through his Advocate Uttam Singh Chauhan by registered post AD on the correct address of the petitioner asking the petitioner to make payment of the cheque amount of both the cheques within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, however, petitioner failed to make payment of the amount mentioned in the cheques, therefore, complaint. 4. Learned Magistrate, vide impugned order 17.09.2011, was pleased to pass summoning order. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Adhirkari, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that impugned order is bad in law for two reasons viz. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.S. Adhirkari, Advocate for the respondent and have carefully perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that impugned order is bad in law for two reasons viz. (i) “stop instruction” does not amount “insufficient fund” (ii) composite notice for two different cheques and composite complaint for two different cheques is not maintainable. 7. This Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Saini Vs. Jogendra Kumar reported in 2013 (1) UD 526 placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Dyechem Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2012 (11) SCALE 365 has held that “amount insufficient” to honour the cheque is genus, of which expression ‘account is closed’, ‘stop payment’ and ‘signature does not tally’ are specie and therefore, even if, cheques is dishonour on the ground to “stop payment” would attract penal provision of 138 of NI Act. Therefore, first argument advanced by Mr. Parikshit Saini, is hereby rejected. 8. Petitioner has issued four different cheques, out of which two, are subject matter of present complaint i.e. cheques no. 100003 amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- and another cheques of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Both the cheques were presented together by the complainant for encashment on 22.07.2011 and both the cheques were returned with endorsement “stop instruction” on 25.07.2011 and for both the cheques composite legal notice was got issued, through Advocate on 28.07.2011 asking the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 9,00,000/- i.e. amount of both the cheques. When petitioner failed to make payment of both the cheques, complainant filed composite complaint. 9. Mr. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his second submission has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the case Kershi Pirozsha Bhagvagar Vs. State of Gujrat reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 3958. 10. In the case of Kershi Pirozsha (supra), two cheques were pertaining to loan taken by the accused on 25.12.1995 while another two cheques were for another loan transaction dated 07.12.1995 complainant filed two different complaints one for two cheques issued for the loan transaction dated 25.12.1995 and another complaint for another two other cheques pertaining to loan transaction dated 07.12.1995. In the case of Kershi Pirozsha (supra), two cheques were pertaining to loan taken by the accused on 25.12.1995 while another two cheques were for another loan transaction dated 07.12.1995 complainant filed two different complaints one for two cheques issued for the loan transaction dated 25.12.1995 and another complaint for another two other cheques pertaining to loan transaction dated 07.12.1995. After summoning the accused in both the two complaints, an application was moved before the Magistrate under Section 219 Cr.P.C. stating therein that accused should be charged and tried in both the complaints together. Division Bench of Gujrat High Court in the above background of facts held that as per Section 219 Cr.P.C. accused can be charged and tried together for three offences of the same kind committed within a year and since there were four different cheques, therefore, four offences cannot be charged and tried together. Section 219 & Section 220 Cr.P.C. reads as under: “ 219. 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 5 Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local law : 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. 220. Trial for more than one offence. (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. 220. Trial for more than one offence. (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as providedin sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law 6 in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences. (4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 11. Perusal of both the Sections makes it clear that Section 219 Cr.P.C. provides that three different offences of the same kind committed within a period of twelve months from the date of first offence to the date of last offence may be charged together while Section 220 Cr.P.C. provides that there may be one trial for more offences if one series of acts, so connected together as to form same transaction by the same person. There is no doubt that dishonour of each cheque will constitute different offences, however, if cheques were inter-connected and pertaining to same transaction and composite notice was given for such cheques, then such composite notice and composite complaint shall be maintainable. 12. Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Manjula Vs. There is no doubt that dishonour of each cheque will constitute different offences, however, if cheques were inter-connected and pertaining to same transaction and composite notice was given for such cheques, then such composite notice and composite complaint shall be maintainable. 12. Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Manjula Vs. Colgat Palmolive (India) Limited reported in 2006 (5) CTC 303 MANU/TN/2780/2006 also had occasion to interpret Section 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. in the light of Section 138 of NI Act. In the case of Manjula (supra) 16 different cheques were issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of financial liability. All the 16 cheques were presented together for payment and were dishonoured and thereafter, single notice was sent to the accused by the complainant. In the background of these facts, Division Bench of Madras High Court in paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 has held as under: “12. The above said 16 cheques were drawn on different dates and they were for different amounts, but, they were presented together for payment and were dishonoured and a single notice was sent by the complainant to the drawer. The general rule is that every distinct offence of which a person is accused, there shall be separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. As observed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in 1996 (3) Cri 283 , Section 219 Cr.P.C. is an exception to the general rule. As stated earlier, even though different cheques were given on different dates, the presentation of all those cheques formed the same transaction. Further, the demand was also made by the complainant on the dishonouring of the cheques by giving one lawyer’s notice and not several demands for the payment of the dishonoured cheques. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner/accused herein may be charged and tried at one trial for several such offences, because, the series of acts are so inter-linked or inter-connected. 13. The very object of Section 219 is to prevent miscarriage of justice by clubbing together a number of offences and making it impossible for the accused to defend them. Sections 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. lay down different and distinct exception to the general rule contemplated under Section 218Cr.P.C. in framing charges. 13. The very object of Section 219 is to prevent miscarriage of justice by clubbing together a number of offences and making it impossible for the accused to defend them. Sections 219 and 220 Cr.P.C. lay down different and distinct exception to the general rule contemplated under Section 218Cr.P.C. in framing charges. We are of the view that the number of three offences underlined in Section 219 of the Code cannot control Section 220(1)of the Code. 14. In the instant case, 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. In such circumstances, it is easy to conclude that the offences under Section 138 of the Act in respect of those cheques can be held to be offences committed in the course of same transaction. Section 219(1) Cr.P.C. refers to identical offences committed on different dates during a span of 12 months. It permits joinder of those charges provided they are offences of the same kind. 15. In these circumstances, we hold that Section 219(1) Cr.P.C. permits joinder of all charges provided they are offences of the same kind. We are also of the view that 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 and that it is not a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the drawer of the cheques. We further hold that if the offences are of the same kind, the number of transactions between the parties which culminated into issuance of the statutory notice is no ground to urge that under Section219 Cr.P.C., the prosecution laid against the petitioner is not maintainable. 16. In the case on hand, though the act of issuance of 16 cheques was on different dates, in view of the fact that a demand was made by issuing a common notice, the complaint cannot be said to be vitiated. 16. In the case on hand, though the act of issuance of 16 cheques was on different dates, in view of the fact that a demand was made by issuing a common notice, the complaint cannot be said to be vitiated. To put it clear, though the giving of cheques by the accused to the complainant may be on different dates, all those acts of giving those cheques were merged together to form the same transaction viz., the presentation of the cheques together was on one particular date. In view of the fact that demand was also made by the complainant on the dishonouring of the cheques by giving one lawyer’s notice and not several demands, we are of the view that the accused may be charged and tried at one trial for several such offences because the series of acts are so inter-linked or inter-connected together so as to form the same transaction of dishonouring the cheques, therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is vitiated.” 13. It seems that Gujrat High Court took the view in the background that there were different legal notices and cheques were in discharge of two different transactions. However, before the Madras High Court composite lawyer’s notice was got issued for different cheques, which were dishonoured together on presentation together. 14. In the present case too, cheques were issued in discharge of financial liability under the agreement dated 11.06.2010 presented together, dishonoured together therefore, composite lawyer’s notice was issued and composite complaint was filed. 15. In view of the facts as narrated hereinabove, present case is fully covered by the judgment of Division Bench of Madras High Court, therefore, second argument raised by Mr. Parikshit Saini, also stands rejected. Consequently, both the petition fail and are dismissed. Let copy of this judgment be placed in the connected petition.