ORDER : 1. In all these petitions, the respective petitioners-original complainants, who have filed the Criminal Cases for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, have prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court in staying further proceedings of Criminal Complaints till Summary Suits filed by the respective petitioners to recover the amount under the cheque in question, are finally decided. 2. The respective petitioners herein have filed Criminal Complaints being Criminal Case Nos. 4943/1996, 4942/1996 and 4941/1996 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara against the private respondents herein for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that to recover the amount under the aforesaid cheque in question, the petitioners also instituted Summary Suits, which were pending. Private respondents herein-original accused submitted an application under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before learned Magistrate to stay the further proceedings of the Criminal Complaints till Summary Suits are finally decided and disposed of. Learned Magistrate has accepted the same and passed the impugned order and stayed further proceedings of the Criminal Complaints till Summary Suits are finally decided by the Court. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioners- original complainants have preferred the present petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Mr. Manav Mehta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners-original complainants has submitted that learned Magistrate has materially erred in staying further proceedings of Criminal Complaints till Summary Suits are finally decided in exercise of power under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As such Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be applicable in the Cases instituted upon complaints. He has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of John Thomas vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, (2001) 6 SCC 30 . By making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to allow the present petitions. 4. The present petitions are opposed by Mr. M.T. Saiyed, learned advocate for Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents-original accused. K. Jagadeesan, (2001) 6 SCC 30 . By making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to allow the present petitions. 4. The present petitions are opposed by Mr. M.T. Saiyed, learned advocate for Mr. M.M. Tirmizi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents-original accused. It is submitted that to avoid any conflicting findings in the proceedings, learned Magistrate has rightly stayed further proceedings of Criminal Cases till Summary Suits are finally decided. By making above submission, it is requested to dismiss all these petitions. 5. Mr. M.R. Mengdey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the petitioners- original complainants and has submitted that learned Magistrate has materially erred in applying Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and staying further proceedings of Criminal Cases till Summary Suits are finally decided and disposed of. 6. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the Criminal Cases, which were stayed by learned Magistrate are instituted on private complaints and they were not summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaints. Learned Magistrate has stayed further proceedings of Criminal Cases in question till Summary Suits are finally decided by exercising jurisdiction under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that the same would be applicable in any summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaints. Therefore, ingredients of Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not satisfied at all. 7. Identical question came to be considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of John Thomas (Supra) and Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be applicable to the Cases instituted upon complaint. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by learned Magistrate in staying further proceedings of Criminal Cases till Summary Suits are finally decided, cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, considering the fact that Criminal Complaints were filed for the offence punishable Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Merely because Summary Suits were filed by the respective petitioners to recover the amount under the cheque in question, learned Magistrate is not justified in staying further proceedings of the Criminal Complaints till Summary Suits are finally decided. Even otherwise, considering the fact that Criminal Complaints were filed for the offence punishable Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Merely because Summary Suits were filed by the respective petitioners to recover the amount under the cheque in question, learned Magistrate is not justified in staying further proceedings of the Criminal Complaints till Summary Suits are finally decided. Both the proceedings are different, One is filed to recover the amount under the cheque in question and another is filed to punish the original accused for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, learned Magistrate was not justified in staying further proceedings of the Criminal Complaints till Summary Suits are finally decided and disposed of. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, all these petitions succeed. The impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court in staying further proceedings of the Criminal Cases till Summary Suits are finally decided are hereby quashed and set aside and learned Magistrate is hereby directed to proceed further with the aforesaid Criminal Cases i.e. Criminal Case Nos. 4943/1996, 4942/1996 and 4941/1996. As the original complaints are of the year 1996, learned Magistrate is hereby directed to see that the aforesaid Criminal Cases are decided and disposed of at the earliest but not later than 30th June, 2011. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the petitions. Registry is directed to send writ of this order to the learned Trial Court immediately. Petitions allowed.