Cheque dishonour proceedings should continue despite a parallel criminal case when the accused's version is a defence to prove.

Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should not be stayed merely because a separate FIR-based criminal case involving the same parties is pending. The court held that the accused's claim that the cheque had not come into the complainant's hands legitimately was a defence to be proved in the cheque dishonour case, and that possible prejudice from the connected case did not justify halting the complaint. The revisional court's stay was therefore unsustainable, and the complaint proceedings were directed to continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court was justified in staying the complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the connected criminal case would be prejudiced.

Analysis: The stay was held unsustainable because the dispute whether the cheque had come into the complainant's hands legitimately was a matter of defence to be established by the accused in the cheque dishonour case. The pendency of the separate FIR-based criminal case could not be given primacy over the complaint under Section 138 merely on the ground of possible prejudice, since the burden of proving the defence facts lay on the respondents.

Conclusion: The stay order was set aside and the complaint proceedings were directed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should not be stayed merely because a separate criminal case involving the same parties is pending, when the accused's version constitutes a defence to be proved in those proceedings.

---