1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The appellant, aggrieved of the order dated 23.01.2007 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No.1642 of 2006 by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, is before this court seeking for an order to set aside the same and quash the proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") inter alia contending that he has issued a Demand Draft bearing No.216548 dated 6.12.2004 in his capacity as Branch Manager in favour of Manager, Union Bank of India, which was not honoured by the third respondent herein-Bank for the reason that third respondent-Bank suspected foul play in issuance of the said demand draft, as is evident from the memorandum issued by the first respondent, who is the complainant. The case of the appellant herein before the High Court is that having regard to the facts pleaded in the compliant, the allegations made against him do not attract the provisions of Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Act, therefore, he has prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings. The High Court, after adverting to the complaint lodged by the first respondent and the order passed by the Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune, wherein it held that the first respondent has made out a prima facie case, as alleged in the complaint against the appellant herein, therefore, declined to interfere with the issuance of the process to the appellant herein to appear in the proceedings and contest the matter.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant being in the capacity as a Branch Manager of the bank issued the instrument in favour of the Manager, Union Bank of India, therefore, there is no personal liability attached to him to pay the amount of the dishonoured of the said instrument as he has issued the said pay order in the capacity as a Manager of the Bank. The High Court did not accept this contention holding that the said contention does not contain merit and, consequently, does not exonerate the appellant herein. We do not agree with this view taken by the High Court as the same is contrary to law. Unless the allegation contained in the complaint shows that the instrument which is issued in favour of the opposite party against any liability or a debt prima facie shown, the provisions of Section 138 of the Act are not attracted. This important factual and legal aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the High Court. On this ground alone, the order impugned and the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein are liable to be set aside. Apart from this reasoning, we are told at the Bar by learned counsel for respondent No.3-Bank that a civil suit is also instituted. It is a well settled proposition of law if there is a civil litigation between the parties, it is a good ground for non

-initiation of criminal proceedings under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A civil liability cannot be converted to criminal liability. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant herein are quashed.