IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2016 of 2008() ------------------------- ST.2314/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- C.KHALID, S/O. ABDUL RAHIMAN, FANAR HOUSE, ACHARATH ROAD, P.O. SAIDARPALLI, THIRUVANGAD AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SULAIMAN VAYALATH,S/O. POCKER HAJI VAYALATH HOUSE, PARINGATHUR AMSOM, PULIYANAMBRAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.2016 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008 ORDER Petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution is based on a cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner for discharge of a liability. Cognizance has already been taken. The matter is pending before the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be directed to be stayed pending disposal of O.S.162 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Thalassery between the same parties in which the alleged liability of the petitioner to pay amounts to the 1st respondent/defacto complainant is in dispute. The counsel submits that the disposal of the civil case is likely to take some time and if in the meantime the criminal prosecution is disposed of, it will cause great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. 3. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The mere pendency of a civil litigation cannot be held Crl.M.C No.2016 of 2008 2 to be sufficient reason to stay the proceedings in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. All the defences which the petitioner can raise in the civil case and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be raised in the criminal trial and I am of opinion that it is not necessary to wait for final disposal of the civil case to commence the trial in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I am not persuaded to agree that any exceptional reasons exist in this case to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-