JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- Iqbal Singh, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 536 of 2011 (Annexure P4) titled as Mahindera and Mahindera Vs. Iqbal Singh as well as the summoning order (Annexure P5) passed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act) by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala as also the consequential proceedings arising therein. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner availed a loan facility from the respondent company in a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- regarding which agreement was executed on 30.6.2010. The company is said to have taken 17 cheques from the petitioner by way of security and they were all blank. According to him, there has been an arbitration clause in the agreement executed between the parties under which the respondent referred the matter to arbitration. He has further submitted that the arbitrator has passed the award on 30.8.2011 and in pursuance of the same, the respondent has filed execution application on 13.12.2011. According to him, in the said execution application, attachment orders had been made. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cheque, which is claimed to have been dishonoured, was issued by way of security and not for discharge of any legal liability. He has further submitted that the proceedings under section 138 of the Act cannot be simultaneously initiated with the arbitration proceedings and the complaint is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted, on the other hand, that the amount of loan was to be repaid by the petitioner in 42 monthly installments. According to him, he only paid two installments and then stopped payment thereof. According to him, reference was then made by respondent to arbitration and before the arbitrator entered upon the reference, the petitioner approached the respondent company and showed his willingness to settle the matter. According to him, he gave a cheque dated 14.2.2011 for discharge of his liability towards the respondent which has been dishonoured. According to him, a legal notice was given to the petitioner on 5.3.2011 and the complaint has been filed on 21.4.2011. According to him, he gave a cheque dated 14.2.2011 for discharge of his liability towards the respondent which has been dishonoured. According to him, a legal notice was given to the petitioner on 5.3.2011 and the complaint has been filed on 21.4.2011. He has submitted that the proceedings under section 138 of the Act and the arbitration proceedings can be taken recourse to simultaneously and there is no legal bar to it. 5. As is the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioner had expressed his willingness to settle the matter and he issued the cheque in question on 14.2.2011 in the amount that was due to the respondent on that day. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had given 17 blank cheques by way of security. 6. The question is as to whether the cheque, on dishonour of which the complaint has been filed by the respondent, is one of those 17 cheques or it has been issued on 14.2.2011 by the petitioner. This is a question of fact which has to be decided by the court seized of the complaint under section 138 of the Act. The question as to whether a complaint under section 138 of the Act on dishonour of a cheque can proceed simultaneously with the arbitration proceedings was before Hon‘ble Supreme Court in M/s Sri Krishna Agencies Vs. State of A.P. & Anr., [2008(6) Law Herald (SC) 4371] : 2009(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 49. It has been held in the said case that there could be no bar to the simultaneous continuance of a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding if the two arise from separate causes of action. 7. The petitioner did not repay the loan and defaulted in the payment of the installments. The respondent company took recourse to the arbitration proceedings but before the award could be passed, the petitioner is said to have approached the respondent with offer of settlement and he issued cheque dated 14.2.2011 for payment of the entire amount due against him in the loan. The said cheque was dishonoured. The two proceedings are, therefore, initiated on two different causes of action and I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the two proceedings cannot proceed simultaneously. 8. The said cheque was dishonoured. The two proceedings are, therefore, initiated on two different causes of action and I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the two proceedings cannot proceed simultaneously. 8. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the proceedings of complaint No. 536 of 2011 (Annexure P4) titled as Mahindera and Mahindera Vs. Iqbal Singh cannot be quashed. The petition is, consequently, dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0-----------