(1.) TWO proceedings are continuing side by side. One of such proceedings which was initiated on the complaint of the wife/opposite party against her husband under Section 498a/406/120b of the Indian Penal Code, is now pending for consideration before the learned 1st Court of Judicial magistrate at Sealdah. The other proceeding is a suit for divorce which was also filed by the wife/opposite party against her husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Both the aforesaid proceedings were thus, initiated at the instance of the wife/opposite party. First of such proceedings was the criminal proceeding which was filed by the wife, as aforesaid. The civil suit for divorce was filed subsequently. The allegations constituting cruelty, on which the criminal proceeding was initiated, are the allegations on which the Civil Suit was also founded.

(2.) THERE is no disagreement between the parties on the issue that the similar set of facts are the foundation of both the criminal proceeding and the civil suit. Charge has already been framed in the criminal proceeding. Issues have also been framed in the civil suit.

(3.) SINCE the claim and counter-claim of the parties are identical in both the aforesaid proceedings it is not quite unnatural that some of the issues and/or charges in those proceedings will be identical.

(4.) BOTH the criminal proceeding and the civil suit have matured for hearing. The cross-examination of the wife/opposite party is now going on, in the criminal proceeding. In the civil suit the petitioner has already submitted his evidence in chief on affidavit. Cross-examination of the petitioner is yet to be commenced.

(5.) AT this stage the petitioner/husband filed an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the civil suit inter alia praying for stay of further proceeding of the civil suit till the disposal of the aforesaid criminal proceeding on the ground that if both the proceedings are allowed to be proceeded with simultaneously then there will be embarrassment of trial not only for the parties but also for the Court. It was alleged by the petitioner in the said application that if the civil suit is allowed to be proceeded with then he will be compelled to disclose his full defence, in the civil suit and such disclosure will affect his defence in the criminal proceeding.

(6.) SUCH application of the petitioner/husband was rejected by the learned Trial Judge primarily on the ground that since the petitioner has already filed written statement in the suit and the issues have already been framed, the petitioner cannot be affected, if the civil suit is allowed to be continued simultaneously with the criminal proceeding. Thus, the learned trial Judge held that though similar set of facts are involved in both the criminal proceeding as well as in the civil suit but, still then, there is hardly any chance of embarrassment in the trial of both the proceedings simultaneously, as the defence had already been disclosed by the petitioner in the civil suit.

(7.) CHALLENGING the propriety of the said order the petitioner/husband has filed the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of india before this Court.

(8.) MR. Sardar Amzad Ali, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner relied upon various decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well as of this Honble Court to show that when the pleadings of the parties are identical in both the criminal proceeding as well as in the civil suit and when there is possibility of embarrassment of trial because of such identity of dispute in the said proceedings, it will be expedient to stay all further proceedings of the civil suit till the disposal of the criminal proceeding. Following are the decisions which were relied upon by Mr. Ali in support of his aforesaid submission :- 1. In the case of. M. S. Sheriff and Anr. v. State of Madras and Ors. reported in AIR 1954 SC 397. 2. In the cas