THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4557 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No. 2094 of 2009 on the file of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Lal Bahadur Nagar. The 2nd respondent filed the complaint in the lower Court against the petitioner on the ground that cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured by his banker and that the said cheque was issued in respect of legally enforceable debt in pursuance of agreement dated 09.10.2006. It is alleged that taking advantage of his acquaintance with the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached and induced the 2nd respondent and his friend to purchase a land and received a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from the 2nd respondent and his friend and that after enquiry, the 2nd respondent came to know that the accused was in no way concerned with the property for which, they have entered into agreement and that immediately, the 2nd respondent demanded the petitioner to settle his share of amount and accordingly, the petitioner-accused gave the cheque in question which was later dishonoured. No doubt, the 2nd respondent and another, who are parties to the agreement, filed civil suit O.S. No. 2290 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District against the petitioner and another for recovery of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest. That does not bar the 2nd respondent to take steps against the petitioner under criminal law. The 2nd respondent and another filed C.C.No. 281 of 2007 against the petitioner in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ramannapet, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code with regard to the same transaction of inducing the 2nd respondent to enter into agreement in respect of a land with which the petitioner was not concerned. The case in C.C.No. 281 of 2007 is in relation to the transaction of agreement only, whereas the case relating to C.C.No. 2094 of 2009 is to dishonour of a cheque. No doubt, the said cheque was issued in connection with the previous agreement between the parties, which formed the basis for issue of the cheque in question and which formed legally enforceable debt in relation to the cheque in question. Both the cases have different bases. There is no overlapping of causes of action or reliefs in both the cases. Therefore, the 2nd case i.e. C.C. No. 2094 of 2009 is certainly maintainable even when C.C.No. 281 of 2007 is being pursued. The petitioner’s counsel could not show any legal bar for proceeding with C.C.No. 2094 of 2009 while C.C.No. 281 of 2007 is pending or disposed of. Thus, there are no legal or valid grounds for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No. 2094 of 2009. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------- (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 8th June 2010 ksld