Yes, criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act can continue simultaneously with civil recovery suits. The Supreme Court has affirmed that both a civil suit for recovery and a criminal complaint under Section 138 are maintainable simultaneously for the same cause of action. This does not constitute abuse of process or multiplicity of proceedings, as the criminal proceedings under Section 138 are quasi-civil in nature and aim to address the civil aspect of recovery through criminal means.

Simultaneous Criminal Proceedings (S. 138 NI Act) & Civil Recovery Suits: Permissibility & Abuse of Process
1. Legal Position on Parallel Proceedings
Explicitly Permitted: Indian law allows simultaneous criminal proceedings (S. 138 NI Act) and civil suits (Money Recovery) for the same dishonoured cheque.

Rationale:

S. 138 NI Act is a criminal remedy (punitive: imprisonment/fine).

Civil suit is a contractual remedy (compensatory: debt recovery + interest).

Key Precedents:

K.M. Ibrahim v K.P. Mohammed (2009 SC): Criminal and civil proceedings can coexist.

G. Sagar Suri v State of UP (2000 SC): No bar unless proceedings are malicious or oppressive.

2. Conditions to Avoid Abuse of Process
While parallel cases are valid, courts may intervene if:

No Debt/Liability Exists: If the civil court conclusively holds that no legally enforceable debt exists, the S. 138 case may be quashed (*M/s Indus Airways v M/s Magnum Aviation, 2014 SC*).

Malicious Prosecution: If the complainant files a false S. 138 case despite settling the debt, courts may stay criminal proceedings (*M/s Meters and Instruments v Kanchan Mehta, 2017 SC*).

Oppressive Tactics: Using S. 138 solely to harass the drawer despite a pending civil suit may invite judicial scrutiny (Krishna Lal Chawla v State of UP, 2021 SC).

3. Key Judicial Principles
Presumption of Debt (S. 139 NI Act): The drawer is presumed liable unless disproven (independent of civil proceedings).

No Double Jeopardy (Art. 20(2)): Applies only to same offence (civil and criminal actions are distinct).

Burden of Proof: In S. 138, the complainant must prove debt liability; in civil suits, the standard is balance of probabilities.

4. Practical Implications
For Creditors: Can pursue both routes for faster recovery and deterrence.

For Debtors: Must prove abuse (e.g., no debt, settled claim) to stall criminal proceedings.

5. Conclusion
Parallel proceedings are legally valid and do not inherently amount to multiplicity or abuse.

Courts intervene only if:

Civil suit conclusively negates liability, or

Criminal case is proven vexatious.

Strategic Note:

Debtors should seek early civil adjudication to potentially quash S. 138 cases.

Creditors should ensure documentary proof of debt to withstand scrutiny in both forums