Parallel prosecution under cheque dishonour and cheating laws is not barred where the offences have distinct ingredients.

Section 300(1) CrPC does not bar parallel prosecution under Section 420 IPC and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because both proceedings arise from overlapping facts. The two offences contain distinct legal ingredients, and Section 138 does not require proof of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuing the cheque. On that reasoning, the stay of the criminal proceedings was held unsustainable, and both matters were directed to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in staying the criminal proceedings on the ground that the prosecution under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose from the same facts and attracted Section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The earlier decision relied upon had already negatived the applicability of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a similar situation. The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not identical to the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as the ingredients are different and the element of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of issuance of cheque is not required to be proved under Section 138. Since the two proceedings are based on distinct legal ingredients, the bar under Section 300(1) does not apply merely because some facts overlap.

Conclusion: The stay order was unsustainable and was set aside; the Magistrate was directed to proceed with both matters in accordance with law and pronounce judgments on the same day.

---