IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.4248 of 2022 Pratap Chandra Mohapatra …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Jajati Keshari Khuntia, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opp. Party(s) Ms. Suvalaxmi Devi, ASC Mr. Kumar Niketan Mohapatra, Advocate (for opposite party No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 13.05.2026 02. 1. Heard. 2. By means of this application, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in I.C.C. Case No.651 of 2021, wherein on the complaint lodged by the opposite party No.2, cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was taken against the petitioner. 3. The background facts of the case are that the petitioner had earlier filed I.C.C. Case No.611 of 2021 before the learned S.D.J.M., Balasore with a prayer to send the complaint to the I.I.C., Industrial P.S., Balasore for investigation against the opposite party No.2 in respect of the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420/471/472/470 of the I.P.C. That complaint was registered as Bampada (Industrial) P.S. Case No.178 of 2021 dated 05.11.2021 corresponding to C.T. Case no.937 of 2021. It is the contention of the petitioner that the self-same facts have been misutilised by the opposite party No.2 to lodge I.C.C. Case No.651 of 2021 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against him on the strength of certain cheques. The petitioner submits that the opposite party No.2 with mala fide intention misused the cheques issued by him and thereby initiated the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 4. The coordinate Bench of this Court has already considered in CRLMC No.4244 of 2022, which arose out of similar facts and circumstances between the same parties, that the pendency of a criminal case alleging cheating, forgery or even theft of cheques does not ipso facto bar the complainant from prosecution a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The offence under Section 138 is a special statutory offence, carved out to ensure sanctity of commercial transactions and credibility of negotiable instruments, whereas the offences under Sections 420/471/472/470 of I.P.C. are distinct in their ingredients as well as in their object. 5. It is well settled that merely because two sets of proceedings spring from a similar factual backdrop, they cannot be said to be mutually destructive if the offences alleged are separate and independent. The dishonour of cheque, if issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, gives rise to a distinct cause of action under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Conversely, an allegation that the cheque was misused or forged may at best constitute a defence which the drawer of the cheque is entitled to raise in the trial under Section 138, or pursue independently in criminal proceedings under the I.P.C. 6. The plea advanced by the Petitioner that the cheques were misused with mala fide intent does not, at this stage, warrant quashment of the order of cognizance. Such disputed questions of fact, touching upon the validity, genuineness or enforceability of the instrument, are matters of evidence and trial. It would be premature for this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to stifle the complaint proceeding at the threshold on the basis of such contested defences. 7. In view of the above discussion, and following the reasoning already recorded in CRLMC No.4244 of 2022, this Court is of the considered view that both proceedings can lawfully proceed in parallel, without one rendering the other redundant. 8. The petitioner is not precluded to take the plea as regards to the theft of cheque before the Court adjudicating the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act in I.C.C. Case No.651 of 2021, which is fully competent to consider and adjudicate upon the same in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed being devoid of merit. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna