Judgment :- A complaint was filed against him by first respondent herein, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (‘the Act', for short) in respect of two claques alleged to have been issued by petitioner in favour of the first respondent. The claques were allegedly issued in connection with the purchase of a vehicle. Complainant/first respondent is the financier. The vehicle was purchased by petitioner from complainant based on a hire purchase agreement. Petitioner allegedly issued the claques towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt in favour of complainant. But the claques when presented, were returned as unpaid. Thereafter, complying with the formalities under the provisions of the Act, the complaint was filed against petitioner. 2. According to petitioner, claques are not covered by consideration. Those were given as security and those cannot be used against the undertaking given by first respondent. The claques were not liable to be encashed or presented by the first respondent, since the vehicle purchased on hire purchase agreement was sold by petitioner to third party with the knowledge and consent of the first respondent. As the sale was with the consent and knowledge, claques were undertaken not to be presented. Petitioner also filed suits against complainant as well as the third party who purchased the vehicle. 3. Petitioner would contend that subject matter involved in the criminal case as well as the suits are one and the same and the outcome of the civil proceedings will necessarily have bearing on the decision to be taken in the criminal case. Therefore, continuance of criminal proceedings before completion of civil proceedings would prejudicially affect interest of petitioner. Petitioner therefore prays for a direction to the lower court not to continue with the proceedings in C.C.No.1196 of 2001 and also to take up the case for trial and judgment only after the disposal of O.S.No.764 of 2001 pending before the Sub Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in Megaphone Number v. Bharathan [1995 (1) KLT 591] in support of his contention and argued that stay of criminal proceedings can be granted in this case. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner placed reliance on the decision reported in Megaphone Number v. Bharathan [1995 (1) KLT 591] in support of his contention and argued that stay of criminal proceedings can be granted in this case. The relevant portion from the above decision can be extracted hereunder: "Stay of trial of a criminal case can be granted pending disposal of the civil suit between the parties on the same subject matter in suitable cases where facts and circumstances show the stay to be necessary to avoid any embarrassment in the conduct of the criminal proceedings. There is no hard and fast rule that criminal proceedings should always be stayed pending disposal of a connected civil suit. The possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. Public interest demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. The right of appeal available to the parties will be no ground to move for further adjournment of the criminal proceedings. The position therefore is that in appropriate cases this court can direct stay of a criminal proceeding till the civil court adjudicates the dispute provided the facts to be proved in both cases are almost the same." 5. It is clear from the dictum laid down from the above decision that there is no hard and fast rule that criminal proceedings should be stayed when civil suit is pending. It is only in cases where there is possibility of conflicting decisions, such possibility may become relevant in considering whether stay is to be granted or not. On going through the allegations in complaint and suits, I am satisfied that there will not be any possibility of clash in decisions and no ground is made out to stay criminal proceedings. It appears that cause of action for both the proceedings are different. 6. In the complaint filed against petitioner, what is to be considered by the criminal court is whether requirements of offence under Section 138 are made out or not. But in the suit filed against the third party, civil court has to decide mainly whether petitioner is entitled to recover amount covered by hire purchase from the latter. 6. In the complaint filed against petitioner, what is to be considered by the criminal court is whether requirements of offence under Section 138 are made out or not. But in the suit filed against the third party, civil court has to decide mainly whether petitioner is entitled to recover amount covered by hire purchase from the latter. No relief is sought for in the said suit against complainant/first respondent though he is subsequently impleaded in that suit. The suit filed by petitioner against the complainant is for settlement of accounts. 7. Thus, issues arising for consideration in civil proceedings and the criminal case are different. It does not appear that there is any possibility of there being any conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal proceedings. Hence there is no ground to grant stay of proceedings until final disposal of the suit. Whatever be the defence set up by petitioner based on the pleadings in civil suits, those can be raised in the criminal case. But that cannot be made a ground to stall the proceedings in a criminal case. The court below will, and can independently consider the asserted truth in the case set up by the defence even without waiting for verdict in the civil case. Petition is dismissed.