Judgment sc-2008-16-20-22

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

ORDER B

1Copy pinpoint1. Leave granted.

2Copy pinpoint2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th September, 2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition No. 4508 of 2007 quashing the proceedings, being C.C. No. 982 of 2005, on the file of the llnd c Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (for short the Act) in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. D

3Copy pinpoint3. As would appear from the complaint, the same was filed on account of stop payment orders issued with regard to three cheques of Rs. 5 lakhs each.

4Copy pinpoint4. Before the High Court, it was sought to be contended E on behalf of respondent No. 2 that since the appellant herein had already taken recourse to arbitration proceedings, the dispute was obviously of a civil nature and the criminal complaint could not be proceeded with. Accepting the statements made on behalf of respondent No. 2, the High Court " quashed the complaint as indicated hereinabove. F

5Copy pinpoint5. Mr. Adhyaru, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal, submitted that the High Court has apparently confused the issue relating to the continuance of the afbitration proceedings as also the criminal proceedings, since G when the cheques were dishonoured, a separate liability arose :1r\ terms of Section i 38 of the Act, whereas the arbitration proceedings were under the agreement signed between the parties. It was submitted by him that the commencement and H

22 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A the continuance of the arbitration proceedings could in no way affect criminal proceedings taken separately.

6Copy pinpoint6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Adhyaru, referred to the decision of this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors., (1999) B sec 686, where the same B 1· question arose in relation to arbitration proceedings taken during the continuance of a complaint filed under Sections 415 and 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In. the said decision, it was held that merely. because arbitration proceedings have been undertaken, the criminal proceedings c could not be thwarted. :

7Copy pinpoint7. On behalf of respondent No. 2, the submissions which had been urged before the High Court, were reiterated, which, however, appears to be unacceptable having regard to the y D decision cited by Mr. Adhyaru. We are also of the view that there can be no bar to the simultaneous continuance of a criminal proceeding ·and a civil proceeding if the two arise from separate causes of action. The decision in Trisuns Chemical/ndustry's ·. case (supra) appears to squarely cover this case as well.

8Copy pinpoint8. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the complaint before the learned llnd Additio:nal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,.· Hyderabad to be proceeded with in accordance with law. f

F R.P. Appeal allowed.