JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. is directed against the order dated 15.6.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh District Sriganganagar in criminal regular case No. 286/99 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for staying the proceedings in the case till the disposal of the civil suit has been rejected. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that non-petitioner No. 2, Ratan Lal filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 whereupon the aforesaid regular criminal case No. 286/99 was instituted in the learned court below. Thereafter, non-petitioner No. 2, Ratan Lal filed a civil original suit No. 5/2001 in the Court of Addl. District Judge camp Suratgarh for the recovery of amount which suit is also said to be pending. The petitioner filed an application on 26.2.2002 before the learned court below for staying the proceedings in the criminal case till the disposal of the civil suit, which has been rejected by the learned court below vide impugned order dated 15.6.2002. Hence, this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order. 4. Learned court below has passed a detailed and reasoned order and I do not find any arbitrariness, error, illegality or impropriety in the said order. In passing the impugned order, the learned court below has placed reliance on the case of Modern Denim Ltd. v. Lucqs T.V.S. Ltd. reported in 2000 B.C.R. 183 (Madras) . 5. Indeed, there is no bar of continuance of civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously. The scope and nature criminal proceedings is different from civil proceedings. In the criminal case, the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 has sought conviction and punishment of the petitioner whereas in the civil suit he has sought the relief of recovery of the amount involved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Prem Singh v. State of Haryana reported in 2002(3) Criminal Court Cases 28 (P & H) , but the facts of this case are clearly distinguishable. In the aforesaid case, the question to be determined in the civil suit was as to whether the agreement in question was forged or genuine and the criminal proceedings were based on the allegation that the agreement in question was forged. In the aforesaid case, the question to be determined in the civil suit was as to whether the agreement in question was forged or genuine and the criminal proceedings were based on the allegation that the agreement in question was forged. Thus, in that case the criminal proceedings could be continued only after the agreement was found to be forged. But the facts of the instant case are clearly different from the facts of the aforesaid case. There is, therefore, no abuse of the process of the Court in the instant case nor it is otherwise necessary to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the inherent powers vested in this Court under Section 482 Cr.RC. which, as per the settled law, are to be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and only for the purposes mentioned in the Section. As no such case could be made out, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. 6. In the result, this petition is hereby dismissed summarily.Petition dismissed summarily. *******