Petition Dismissed, Civil & Criminal Cases Can Run Together

The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The court emphasized that both civil and criminal proceedings could proceed in parallel, and the petitioners' arguments did not warrant quashing the criminal complaint or the summoning order. The judgment affirmed the principle that the existence of a civil decree does not preclude criminal proceedings under the NI Act.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
2. Dismissal of application for stay of proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act.
3. Quashing of Criminal Complaint and summoning order.
4. Simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.:
The petitioners sought to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order dated 30th March 2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket District Court, New Delhi, in Criminal Complaint No. 2492 of 2015. They also sought to quash the Criminal Complaint No. 2492 of 2015 and the summoning order dated 13th December 2010, which summoned the petitioners as accused for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. Dismissal of application for stay of proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act:
The petitioners had filed an application under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. for adjournment/stay of the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act, which was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 30th March 2015. The Magistrate observed that the case had been filed in 2010, and the accused had not raised the defense of being unable to make the payment due to restraining orders from various courts during the framing of the notice or in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The defense surfaced only in the application moved for adjournment, appearing to be an afterthought intended to delay the case.

3. Quashing of Criminal Complaint and summoning order:
The petitioners challenged the summoning order dated 13th December 2010 and the order dated 30th March 2015. The court noted that the complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the NI Act was filed due to the dishonoring of two cheques, which were presented for payment but returned with the remark "Funds Insufficient." Legal demand notices were issued and served upon the petitioners, but they failed to make the payment, leading to the filing of the complaint.

4. Simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings:
The court addressed whether the final judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit (OS) No. 47 of 2011 affected the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court in P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana and Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Smt. Daya Sapra held that civil and criminal proceedings could run simultaneously. The judgment and decree in the civil suit had attained finality, and the petitioners' plea in the criminal case lost significance. The court found no merit in interfering with the summoning order and the order dismissing the application for stay.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the orders of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The court emphasized that both civil and criminal proceedings could proceed in parallel, and the petitioners' arguments did not warrant quashing the criminal complaint or the summoning order. The judgment affirmed the principle that the existence of a civil decree does not preclude criminal proceedings under the NI Act.

---