A civil suit does not automatically halt criminal proceedings; both must be adjudicated on their respective legal standards and do not bind one another.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

This criminal revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 , Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [ BNSS ], 2023 is preferred seeking stay/suspension of criminal proceedings of a complaint case, C.R. Case no. 17 NI/2018, presently pending before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate [M], Rangia [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’, for short].

2. The prayer for such stay/suspension of the proceeding is made till disposal of a civil suit, Title Suit no. 318/2018, also pending presently before the Court of Civil Judge [Senior Division] No. 2, Kamrup [Metro] at Guwahati [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Civil Court’, for short] between the same parties.

3. The ground urged for the stay/suspension is that the two proceedings are on the same subject-matter and the question of genuineness of a document, namely, a Deed of Agreement for Sale of Land dated 29.12.2015 is the foundation of the civil suit as well as the criminal proceeding.

4. The respondent no. 1 herein as the complainant has instituted the complaint case, C.R. Case no. 17 NI/2018 before the Trial Court on the ground that two cheques issued for amounts of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- respectively on 10.05.2018 by the petitioner from an account maintained by him at Allahabad Bank, Rangia Dongpar Branch, Rangia stood dishonoured on its presentation for collection by the respondent no. 1-complainant at his Bank. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that when he presented the two cheques for collection at his account maintained at UCO Bank, Rangia Branch, the same were returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of fund in the bank account of the petitioner. A demand notice was, thereafter, issued to the petitioner on 15.06.2018 calling upon the petitioner to pay the total amount of the two cheques, Rs. 15,00,000/- within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the demand notice.

5. In the complaint, the complainant has also asserted that the said demand notice was duly served upon the petitioner on 18.06.2018. When the petitioner failed to pay the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- pertaining to the two dishonoured cheques within a period of fifteen days from 18.06.2018, the cause of action for filing the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, as amended, arose on 03.07.2018, that is, after expiry of fifteen days from the date of service of the notice. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 , Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended [‘the N.I. Act’, for short] and issued process for appearance of the petitioner to stand in trial as an accused.

6. In the course of the proceedings of C.R. Case no. 17 NI/2018, the petitioner as accused filed a petition, Petition no. 207/2021 on 25.01.2021 with a prayer to stay/suspend the proceedings of C.R. Case no. 17 NI/2018 on the ground that a civil suit, Title Suit no. 318/2018 in respect of the same subject-matter is pending between the parties before the Civil Court. The Trial Court after hearing both the sides, by an Order dated 28.11.2022, rejected the prayer made in Petition no. 207/2021. The Trial Court in its Order has observed that there is no bar in proceeding with a criminal case even if a civil suit is pending between the same parties. The Trial Court has observed that the complaint case, C.R. Case no. 17 NI/2018 has arisen out of dishonour of cheques and the same could only be adjudicated in the proceedings undertaken by the complainant by filing a complaint. The Trial Court has further