- (1.) The matter here concerns the stay of the civil suit on account of the pendency of criminal proceedings.
(2.) Some amount was allegedly obtained by the petitioners from the New Bank of India. A criminal case came to be registered against the petitioners in respect of this amount under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 472 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Later a civil suit was also filed by the Bank against the petitioners for the recovery of the said amount. According to R.K. Aggarwal, appearing for the respondent-Bank, the evidence of the Bank in the said civil suit, concluded as far back as January 3, 1987 and the petitioners have already examined five witnesses including Kulbhushan Jain defendant, one of the co-accused in the criminal case. The other defendants in the civil suit being the parents nd the wife of the said Kulbhushan Jain, who too, are the accused in the criminal case. It was his contention, therefore, that such being the state of proceedings in the civil suit, it is too late in the day for the petitioners to now seek to contend that the pendency of the civil case would prejudicially affect them in the criminal proceedings.
(3.) Faced with this situation, Mr. Sanjay Bansal, counsel for the petitioners sought to press in aid M.S. Sheriff and Another v. State of Madras and Others, 1954 AIR(SC) 397, for seeking stay of the civil suit until the criminal case against the petitioners was decided. A reading of this judgment would, however, show that it has expressly stated therein that though as between the civil and criminal proceedings, criminal matters should be given precedence, but no hard and fast rule can be laid. Each case has thus to be considered on its own facts and circumstances.;