One Transaction, Many Cheques: Harmonization Of Consolidated Complaints Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act
- IJLLR Journal
- Nov 13, 2025
- 2 min read
Sanskriti Sharma, University of Mumbai Law Academy
ABSTRACT
In India the cheque jurisprudence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”) has evolved substantially over the past few decades and now stands as a compelling example of the dynamic and interpretative role that the judiciary plays in reconciling statutory rigidity with the commercial realities. Section 138 of the NI Act was designed to promote reliability in monetary transactions by criminalizing the dishonour of cheques issued in discharge of debts or liabilities. However, over the years, the intersection between this penal provision and procedural law, particularly, under Sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPc”) has raised various complex questions to the bar and the bench regarding the multiplicity of complaints when multiple cheques issued under a single transaction are dishonoured.
While the strict statutory language of Section 138 treats each dishonoured cheque as an independent offence that generates a distinct cause of action, however, the judiciary has progressively evolved a pragmatic doctrine of consolidation of various cheques issued during a same transaction or “arising out of the same cause of action” . This consolidation doctrine recognizes that when several cheques stem from one financial arrangement or by/through a continuous obligation then a single complaint is both permissible and preferrable. This interpretation by the judiciary seeks to balance the protection of creditors’ rights against the undue harassment of the accused persons through repetitive prosecutions.
This paper undertakes a comprehensive jurisprudential analysis of this evolution. The paper shall also seek to understand doctrinal approach that has been adopted by the courts to analyse and understand the “same cause of action” in certain cases. The paper begins with a theoretical exploration of the concepts of “cause of action” and “same transaction” through the lens of criminal law, followed by a thorough assessment of the legislative intent behind the Section 138 and its interface with CrPC provisions. Thereafter, it examines key judicial pronouncements from the Supreme Court and High Courts, especially in the backdrop of the recent pronouncement of the J&K High Court in Fayaz Ahmad Rather v Tariq Ahmad (2025) various other cases such as Damodar S Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal (2010) and Gimpex Pvt. Ltd. v. Manoj Goel (2021) shall be reviewed and discussed. The paper also incorporates an analysis of procedural modernizations introduced by the Bhartiya Nagrarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and the digital transformation under the Information Technology Act, 2000, (“IT Act”) both of which fortify the procedural infrastructure in India for expeditious trials.
