IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 904 OF 2011 Mr. Ashok Laxminarayan Shandilya .. applicant Vs. Smt. Pratima Rani Das & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Nitin Sejpal a/w Ms.Pooja Bhojne for applicant Mr. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for State CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 29/9/2011 P.C. Heard. No notice to the 1st respondent. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initiated by respondent (original complainant). 3. Learned counsel submits that there was an agreement of sale by the 1st respondent as owner of the property with the applicant Ashok Shandilya for which a suit for specific performance is filed. For allowing terms of the said agreement to be completed cheques in question were issued and complainant presented them to the bank and they were dishonoured. Learned counsel submits that third party rights are created by the respondent Smt. Pratima Rani Das and her husband Tapan Das. 4. Learned counsel submits the petitioner has initiated action under Sections 447, 451, 453 and 504 r/w 34 of the IPC against the respondents and process has been issued on 25/8/2011 under Section 451 of IPC. He urged the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act needs to be stayed. 5. Going through the documents tendered by the petitioner and the text of the complaint, I find extraneous material, which the petitioner herein desires to be considered, at this stage need not be considered. The cheques were prima facie for discharge of the legally enforceable liability is a part of agreement of sale concerning the property. It is for the petitioner herein to prove the things otherwise which requires evidence. There is prima facie material to hold maintainability of complaint. The courts have found, causes of action in civil court and criminal court is not identical. Filing of Spl. Civil Suit by petitioner will not dilute the primary liability to honour the cheques. 6. At this stage exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. is not imperative as there is no abuse of the process of court. The revisional court has applied all parameters while entertaining the contentions raised by the petitioner in terms of Section 397 of Cr. P. C. Again to have exercised the powers in terms of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C, in the fact situation, is not desirable and not warranted. 7. Petition lacks merit. It is dismissed. 8. Learned trial Judge shall not be influenced by the observations of this court. (K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)