((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.368 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.369 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.371 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.372 OF 2009 M/s.G.Dayaram and Co. and anr. Petitioners (In all the petitions) versus Ramesh Kripalani and another Respondents (In all the petitions) H.K.Thakkar i/by Prakash Naik for petitioners S.S.Pednekar, APP for the State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 06th April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The petitioners are the accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent alleging commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Process has been issued on the said complaint. The case of the petitioners is that the first respondent filed summary suits on the basis of the cheques subject matter of the complaints and in the said suits, unconditional leave to defend has been granted by this Court in favour of the petitioners. On this ground, the petitioners made an application before the ((-2-)) learned Magistrate for stay of proceedings of the complaint. The said application has been rejected. The rejection of the said applications has been confirmed in revision applications. These orders have been challenged in these writ petitions. 2. The only ground on which the stay of the proceedings is sought is that on the basis of the same cheques summary suits were filed in which unconditional leave to defend has been granted to the petitioners. 3. Grant of unconditional leave in summary suit filed by the complaint is no ground to stay the proceedings filed under section 138 of the said Act of 1881. There is no final adjudication made by the orders granting leave to defend. Grant of unconditional leave or pendency of money suit by itself is not a ground to stay the complaint under section 138 of the said Act of 1881. Hence, the petitions are rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)