IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal Proceedings cannot be stayed due to pendency of civil suit in view of bar of second revision under Sections 397(3) and 399(3) Cr.P.C.

S.L. Jain, J.—This Order shall govern disposal of Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 1596/2003 and 1597/2003 also. All these three petitions have been filed by the applicant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code). Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these cases, they are being decided analogously.

2. The facts leading to filing of these cases succinctly narrated are thus:—

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein-after referred to as the Act) has been filed by the non-applicant against the applicant and Jagmohan Choudhary, on the allegations that there was business dealing between the non-applicant/complainant and applicant regarding transaction of 'Servo' oil. During business transaction three cheques bearing Nos. 966696, dated 16.11.2000 for Rs. 1,00,000, 052934, dated 23.11.2000 for Rs. 1,50,000 and 656552, dated 21.11.2000, for Rs.10,000,00 were issued by the accused persons in favour of non-applicants/complainants. When these cheques were presented to the bank for payment, they were dishonoured. The non-applicants then gave a notice for payment of amount of cheques but the same was not paid. Therefore, three complaints under Section 138 of the Act were filed against accused persons which were registered as R.T. Nos. 3990/2002, 4525/2002 and 4524/2002.

3. When in all the above three complaints the complainants closed their evidence and accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code and the case was closed for defence evidence, the accused Joginder Singh filed an application stating therein that the accused persons have filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 1,17,00,000 against the non-applicants/complainants and the said suit is pending before Additional District Judge (Special Court), Bhopal, therefore, till the final disposal of the said civil suit further proceedings in the above referred three complaints be stayed.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the applications filed in all the three complaints.

5. Being aggrieved by the Order of the trial Magistrate, the accused/applicant Joginder Singh filed Criminal Revision No. 384/2002 and both the accused persons filed Criminal Revision Nos. 383/2002 and 7/2003 before the Court of Session.

6. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal dismissed all the aforesaid revision petitions by a common Order, Annexure-1 holding that proceedings in criminal case can be stayed only in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the Court. Since the inherent jurisdiction lie only with the High Court, the powers cannot be exercised by a Court subordinate to the High Court. It is against this Order that the petitioner Joginder Singh Choudhary has filed three misc. criminal cases as described above.

7. On 2.5.2003, all these three cases were listed for consideration of miscellaneous criminal petitions for grant of stay. However, on that day, on the request of both the parties, Shri S.C. Datt, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri N.S. Ruprah learned counsel, appearing for the respondent were heard finally.

8. Shri Datt, learned senior counsel submitted that the Orders passed by the Courts below are incorrect, improper and illegal and the same need to be set aside. As against this, the learned counsel, appearing for the non-applicant supported the Order impugned.

9. The main thrust of the contentions of Shri S.C. Datt, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicants is that the questions involved in the criminal complaints and in the civil suit are the same. Both the cases are in relation to the cheques in question, therefore, the decision of the Civil Court would bind the Criminal Court, hence the proceedings in criminal cases should be stayed till the decision of the Civil Court. His submission is that if both the cases are allowed to proceed simultaneously, there i