Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

M/S SRI KRISHNA AGENCIES versus STATE OF A.P. & ANR.

Decided
11 November 2008
Judges listed
ALTAMAS KABIR, MARKANDEY KATJU (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 20 · 2008 INSC 1288
Also cited as
  • (2009) 1 SCC 69 (7 citing judgments)
  • AIR 2009 SC 1011 (3 citing judgments)
  • (2009) 1 SCC(CRI) 241 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 21, margin B

2

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th September, 2007, passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Petition No. 4508 of 2007 quashing the proceedings, being C.C. No. 982 of 2005, on the file of the llnd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (for short the Act) in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

p. 21, margin B

3

As would appear from the complaint, the same was filed on account of stop payment orders issued with regard to three cheques of Rs. 5 lakhs each.

p. 21, margin D

4

Before the High Court, it was sought to be contended on behalf of respondent No. 2 that since the appellant herein had already taken recourse to arbitration proceedings, the dispute was obviously of a civil nature and the criminal complaint could not be proceeded with. Accepting the statements made on behalf of respondent No. 2, the High Court quashed the complaint as indicated hereinabove.

p. 21, margin D

5

Mr. Adhyaru, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal, submitted that the High Court has apparently confused the issue relating to the continuance of the afbitration proceedings as also the criminal proceedings, since when the cheques were dishonoured, a separate liability arose :1r\ terms of Section i 38 of the Act, whereas the arbitration proceedings were under the agreement signed between the parties. It was submitted by him that the commencement and the continuance of the arbitration proceedings could in no way affect criminal proceedings taken separately.

pp. 21–22, margin F

6

In support of his submissions, Mr. Adhyaru, referred to the decision of this Court in Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors., (1999) B sec 686, where the same question arose in relation to arbitration proceedings taken during the continuance of a complaint filed under Sections 415 and 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In. the said decision, it was held that merely. because arbitration proceedings have been undertaken, the criminal proceedings could not be thwarted. :

p. 22, margin A

7

On behalf of respondent No. 2, the submissions which had been urged before the High Court, were reiterated, which, however, appears to be unacceptable having regard to the decision cited by Mr. Adhyaru. We are also of the view that there can be no bar to the simultaneous continuance of a criminal proceeding ·and a civil proceeding if the two arise from separate causes of action. The decision in Trisuns Chemical/ndustry's · case (supra) appears to squarely cover this case as well.

p. 22, margin C

8

We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and restore the complaint before the learned llnd Additio:nal Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,.· Hyderabad to be proceeded with in accordance with law. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 22, margin E