JUDGMENT : 1. Since the issue raised in these appeals is similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. 2. These appeals are filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vapi dated 03.10.2023 in Criminal Case Nos.1396 of 2022 and 1397 of 2022 acquitting the respondents - accused for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the order dated 10.10.2023 passed below exh.25 and 34 whereby, the complainant was imposed cost of Rs.25,000/-. 3. At the outset, the appeals were not pressed on merits however, notice in the applications for seeking leave to prefer an appeal was issued for the limited purpose of impugned order below exh.25 and 34. 4. It is the case of the complainant that three complaints were filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being Criminal Case Nos.1395 of 2022, 1396 of 2022 and 1397 of 2022 on 10.06.2021 before the competent Court. On being summoned, the accused appeared and on behalf of the accused, one Mahendrabhai Jobaliya accepted the liability and issued fresh cheque in favour of the complainant on 20.06.2022 by way of communication dated 02.09.2022. In view of the above settlement, one case being Criminal Case No.1395 of 2022 was withdrawn and thereafter, the cheque was deposited with the bank which was again returned and for that, the separate case was registered before the competent Court being Criminal Case No.5684 of 2022. As the aforesaid cheque was returned, the remaining two complaints i.e. Criminal Case Nos.1396 of 2022 and 1397 of 2022 were not withdrawn wherein, the learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint on the ground that on arriving the settlement, separate cheque was issued and on dishonour of the same, a fresh complaint is filed and, therefore, for the same dues, two proceedings cannot be initiated together as per the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Gimpex Private Ltd. v/s. Manoj Goel reported in (2021) 11 SCR 432. 5. Alongwith the order of dismissal of complaint, the notice was issued below Exh.34 in Criminal Case No.1397 of 2022 and exh.25 in Criminal Case No.1396 of 2022 upon the complainant that why the cost should not be imposed for wasting of judicial time of the Court. 5. Alongwith the order of dismissal of complaint, the notice was issued below Exh.34 in Criminal Case No.1397 of 2022 and exh.25 in Criminal Case No.1396 of 2022 upon the complainant that why the cost should not be imposed for wasting of judicial time of the Court. The complainant filed a reply to the said show cause notice stating that there was no any intention to waste the time of the Court however, as the cheque which was issued qua the settlement, was not honoured and, therefore, these two impugned complaints were not withdrawn. 6. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the complainant, the learned trial Court come to the conclusion that out of three cases, one case was withdrawn by the complainant however, the two impugned complaints were not withdrawn and for the same debt, the another complaint was filed for the purpose of dishonoring of the cheque, which was issued qua settlement. 7. By the impugned order, the learned trial Court has imposed the cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the complainant which is impugned before this Court. 8. Heard learned advocate Mr.Prerak Bhatt for the complainant and learned advocate Mr.Vishwas Shah for the respondents – accused. 9. The learned advocate submits that there was no any intention of the complainant to waste the time of the Court as the cheque which was issued qua the settlement was dishonoured, therefore, the two complaints were not withdrawn. The learned advocate fairly submits that it is true that the separate complaints were filed challenging the dishonouring of the cheque which was issued qua the settlement. Learned advocate submits that even before this Court also, though the appeal was filed challenging the order of dismissal of the complaint as well as imposing the cost, but at the first instance, the appeal was withdrawn challenging the order on merits however, confining his argument qua the cost part, the learned advocate has pressed for that. The learned advocate submits that due to the dishonouring of the cheque which was issued, which is the subject matter of the impugned complaints, the complainant occurred a huge financial loss however, the second cheque which was issued qua the settlement, was also dishonoured and by imposing the cost of Rs.25,000/-, the complainant was put in the jeopardy. 10. The learned advocate submits that due to the dishonouring of the cheque which was issued, which is the subject matter of the impugned complaints, the complainant occurred a huge financial loss however, the second cheque which was issued qua the settlement, was also dishonoured and by imposing the cost of Rs.25,000/-, the complainant was put in the jeopardy. 10. In view of the above submissions, learned advocate prays to set aside the order below exh.25 and 34, whereby the cost of Rs.25,000/- was imposed. 11. As against the same, learned advocate Mr.Vishwas Shah for the respondent No.2 submitted that two parallel proceedings cannot be initiated together for the same debt as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Gimpex Private Ltd. (supra), therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaints and imposed the cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the complainant and therefore, no interference is required. 12. Considering the submissions advanced by both the parties, it transpires that the present complaint came to be filed by the complainant on 10.06.2021 before the learned trial Court for dishonoring of the two cheques of Rs.10,70,494/- and Rs.14,84,374/-. On issuing the summons, the accused appeared and one Mahendrabhai Jobaliya has issued a fresh cheque in favour of the complainant which was communicated vide communication dated 20.6.2022. Out of three complaints, one complaint being Criminal Case No.1395 of 2022 came to be withdrawn and Criminal Case Nos.1396 of 2022 and 1397 of 2022 were not withdrawn because of the dishonoring of the cheque which was issued by said Mahendrabhai Jobaliya. On dishonoring of the cheque which was issued by the Mahendrabhai Jobaliya, a separate complaint came to be filed being Criminal Case No.5684 of 2022, wherein the present respondents as well as said Mahendrabhai were joined as party respondents. The said criminal case is pending for adjudication before the competent Court. 13. Thereafter, the impugned complaints were proceeded further wherein, the Court come to the conclusion that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Gimpex Private Ltd. (supra), two parallel proceedings cannot be continued for the same debt, therefore, the complaints were dismissed on merits. 13. Thereafter, the impugned complaints were proceeded further wherein, the Court come to the conclusion that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Gimpex Private Ltd. (supra), two parallel proceedings cannot be continued for the same debt, therefore, the complaints were dismissed on merits. Along with the dismissal order, the show cause notice was issued to the complainant below exh.25 and 34, wherein the complainant has filed the application that as per the terms of the settlement, one complaint is to be withdrawn before depositing the cheque which was communicated vide communication dated 02.09.2022 and, therefore, the complaint being Criminal Case No.1395/2022 was withdrawn. On depositing the cheque, it was dishonored and the complainant realized that he was cheated by the respondents -accused and, therefore, the remaining two complaints were not withdrawn. It is averred in the aforesaid application that accused appeared before the learned Court on 27.04.2023 and the trial was concluded on 03.10.2023. There was no any non-co-operation on the part of the complainant neither he had intended to delay the proceedings before the Court. 14. From the record, it further transpires that for dismissing the complaint as well as for imposing the cost, no separate reasons were assigned by the learned trial Court, though separate orders were passed. The common reason in both the impugned orders is that on dishonouring of the fresh cheque, which was given qua the settlement, fresh complaint is filed which is pending for the adjudication and, therefore, two parallel proceedings cannot be continued for the same debt. It is true that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Gimpex Private Ltd. (supra), the complainant cannot pursue two parallel prosecutions for the same transactions but, it does not mean that there was ill intention on the part of the complainant to waste the judicial time of the Court as within a period of six months only, the trial was concluded, therefore, also, by imposing the cost upon the complainant, the complainant may not be victimized or made to suffer because of the act which he has not done intentionally, as observed by the learned trial Court. 15. 15. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that impugned orders below exh.25 and 34 by which cost of Rs.25,000/- was imposed, are required to be quashed and set aside. 16. Resultantly, the appeals are partly allowed in view of the above observations. The orders dated 10.10.2023 passed below exh.25 in Criminal Case No.1396 of 2022 and exh.34 in Criminal Case No.1397 of 2022 whereby, the complainant was imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- are hereby quashed and set aside.