Criminal prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are independent proceedings and should not be stayed pending related civil suits.

ORDER

The petitioner/accused in a case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the respondent was convicted by the Trial Court in C.C. No.

1491 of 2015. Challenging the said conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A. No. 497 of 2025. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 3 of 2026 seeking a direction to stay further proceedings in C.A. No. 497 of 2025 till the disposal of O.S. No.

1321 of 2019 pending before the learned XVI Additional Judge.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention, relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

(i) S.N. Vijayalakshmi and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in 2025 INSC 917;

(ii) Pramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, reported in AIR Online 2012 SC 724;

(iii) M.S. Sheriff Vs. The State of Madras and others, reported in AIR

1954 SC 397; and (iv) P. Swaroopa Rani Vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1884.

3. Relying upon the principles laid down in the above decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the issues involved in the civil suit and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, it would be prudent to await the outcome of the civil proceedings before proceeding further with the criminal case. He further submitted that the lower appellate Court ought to have allowed the petitioner’s prayer and kept C.A. No. 497 of 2025 pending till the disposal of O.S. No.1321 of 2019, which is presently at the penultimate stage. According to the petitioner, the respondent/complainant has been unnecessarily dragging on the civil proceedings.

4. Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the petitioner/accused was convicted in the Section 138 proceedings in C.C. No. 1491 of 2015, against which the appeal is pending before the lower appellate Court. The case of the petitioner is that he, along with another person who was his business partner, jointly undertook construction and development of flats pursuant to a sale-cum-construction agreement dated 09.12.2011. According to the petitioner, the respondent/complainant is a money lender and the co-accused, who has since been discharged from the Section 138 proceedings, used to borrow money from the respondent for the purpose of flat promotion business. It is further contended that signed blank cheques were handed over as security for the said loans, which have subsequently been filled up and misused, resulting in the present prosecution.

5. The petitioner further contended that Ex.P1, namely the agreement dated 09.12.2011, was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court. It was also pointed out that the respondent/complainant and his wife, Sneha, had filed C.S. No. 15 of 2019, which, on account of pecuniary jurisdiction, was subsequently transferred and renumbered as O.S. No. 1321 of 2019, now pending before the XVI Additional Judge, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.32,02,500/-. The said suit also refers to the cheque which forms the subject matter of the Section 138 proceedings involving a sum of Rs.21 lakhs. Hence, according to the petitioner, the outcome of the civil suit would have a direct bearing on the criminal appeal arising out of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.