Civil decree does not bar Section 138 cheque dishonour proceedings; inherent quashing jurisdiction was declined.

A final civil decree between the parties does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from dishonoured cheques issued towards repayment of a loan. Civil and criminal remedies may proceed simultaneously, and the decree's finality did not provide an independent basis to quash the complaint, set aside the summoning order, or compel a stay of trial. In the absence of any separate ground for interference, inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was declined and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the existence of a final civil decree between the parties barred interference with the summoning order and the refusal to stay the proceedings in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The petition sought exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the criminal complaint, the summoning order, and the order refusing stay of trial. The complaint arose from dishonour of cheques issued towards repayment of a loan, while a civil suit based on the same transaction had already been decreed in favour of the complainant. The Court noted that civil and criminal proceedings can proceed simultaneously, and the existence of a civil decree does not by itself nullify proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Since the civil decree had attained finality and no independent ground was shown to interfere with the impugned orders, no merit was found in the petitioners' challenge.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order and the order refusing stay failed, and interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was declined.

---