“5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and also gone through the record carefully. It must be noted here that the cheques in question, dates of their issuance, amounts of the cheques in question, return memos as well as dates of statutory legal notices and amounts claimed therein in these five matters are different. Ld. Counsel for the accused/applicant has argued that if all these five matters are clubbed together, then considerable time and effort will be saved. However, I do not find myself to be in agreement with this argument. Since the particulars of the cheque in question, return memos as well as statutory legal notice involved in this case are different from particulars of the cheques in question, return memos as well as statutory legal notice involved in the other four matters, I am of the opinion that clubbing these five mattes together will result in added confusion. It is also settled principle of law that dishonour of each cheque and subsequent non payment of the cheque amount by the accused within the prescribed period even after receipt of statutory legal notice constitutes a separate cause of action. Since the cheques in question involved in this case and in the other four matters were issued on different dates and for different amounts and statutory notices u/s 138 NI Act were also sent separately to the accused, no useful purpose would be served by clubbing all the five mattes together. I also place reliance upon the case of “Rajendra Chaudhary Vs. State of Maharashtra” 2007 Cr LJ 844 in this regard wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay that “each tender of a cheque and its dishonour gives rise to separate cause of action subject to a condition that separate notices are issued in respect of each of these cheques…. However, in a case where
