JUDGMENT
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) In 1987 the Central Bank of India instituted a civil suit against M/s. Naseeb Enterprises. Col. Charanjiv Partap Ahluwalia and others for the recovery of Rs. 1,07.64,473.59 P. That suit bears No. 349 of 1987. That matter is still pending disposal. After the institution of that civil suit the Bank lodged a complaint with the police on the same facts as alleged in the suit leading to the registration of case F.I.R. No. 265 of 1988 u/Ss. 466/420 against Charanjiv Partap Ahluwalia and Abha Ahluwalia. It may be noticed that Abha Ahluwalia is deft. No. 3 in the said civil suit. Consequent upon the registration of the case Charanjiv and Abha moved this Crl. M (M) No. 141 of 1990 praying for quashing of the Fir and the proceedings alleging that since the dispute was civil in nature and since the suit on same facts was already pending with regard to the recovery of the amount in question the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court.
(2) Though the petition was initially against the State, later the Central Bank was also made a party. Unfortunately, despite the matter being on Board none has put in appearance on behalf of the Bank or on behalf of the State. On the last date of hearing i e. 5.1.96 also none was present on their behalf.
(3) As already noticed above, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the F.I.R. and the proceedings. However, now it has been prayed before me that the criminal proceedings should be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit and that consequently the relief asked for may be moulded.
(4) I need not repeat the allegations as contained in the civil suit or in the F.I.R. in extenso As already noticed by me, the F.I.R. lodged by the Bank is nothing but the incorporation of the same facts which find mention in the civil suit, barring of course certain assertions with regard to criminal intention etc. in order to attract Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code . The transactions relate to certain Credit Facilities granted to the present petitioners and their firm for the purpose of export of Soya Bean Extraction Meal. Certain stocks were hypothecated with the Bank and the grievance of the Bank is that the amount claimed in the suit with regard to those transactions is due from the petitioners and others. The Fir after making a mention of the institution of the civil suit and its penderoy in the High Court, proceeds to mention that the defts. in the suit, despite having availed of opportunities, had failed to file their w/s and replies to the plaint and applications in the suit and that it was on account of their dilatory tactics that the Bank was being “left with no alternative” but to file the F.I.R. Anyhow, the fact remains that the Fir and the civil suit which was instituted earlier in matter of time are founded on the same facts and sums allegations. Should I, under the circumstances stay the criminal proceedings during the pendency of the civil matter ? This is the question which stares at me and craves for an answer.
(5) I am conscious of the fact that in M.S. Sharieff vs. State. it is mentioned that criminal proceedings should take place expeditiously and should not ordinarily be stayed till the disposal of the civil matter. However, the judgment itself would go to show that court was not laying down a hard and fast rule as peculiar facts of a particular case might necessitate some other course more expedient and just. What is important to be remembered in this case is that the civil suit was instituted before the lodging of the Fir and keeping in view the facts it cannot be denied that the decision in the civil suit will have great bearing on the criminal case. This is so because in the present case the facts are intimately connected and rather are not different from those alleged or pleaded in the civil suit.
(6) A similar question arose in Yelchuri R. Chetty vs. Gopal Chetty, Air 1953, M. 439 wherein it was held that where a civil suit is instituted before the lodging of the Fir and the facts are intimately connected, the proceedings in the criminal case should be stayed. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Raminder Kaur vs. Jatinder Singh also, after considering the above noted judgment of the Supreme Court and of the Madras High Court felt that in a case where civil proceedings are initiated before the lodging of the Fir and the facts are not distinguishable the proceedings before the criminal court should be stayed. Yet another Single Judge of this Court in Misri Lal vs. Tola Ram 1984 Raj LR. 125 held that where parties had gone to civil court where entire dispute was likely to be thrashed out and competing interest conclusively determined, it was proper to have the matter decided in the civil court and to allow the complainant to get the complaint revived after decision by the Civil Court. With respect I tend to agree.
(7) For the reasons recorded above, I hold that the proceedings before the criminal court shall stand stayed till the disposal of the suit instituted by the Central Bank of India.