There is no legal bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings, and the question of whether to stay criminal proceedings pending civil proceedings depends on the facts of each case.

( 1 ) HAVING tried and failed in this various attempts to obtain anticipatory bail at various forums, including this Court, Calcutta High Court and Guwahati High Court, where initially he had succeeded will the order granting anticipatory bail by that Court was set aside by the Supreme Court on motion by the complainant, the petitioner has now approached this court under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the Crime Branch, PHQ. Delhi under Sections 408, 420, 468,471 read with Section 120-B IPC. arising out of FIR No. 479/93 dated 19 August 1993, Police Station Srinivaspuri, New Delhi.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions it would be necessary to notice the facts, as can be culled out from the charge sheet, in little detail.

( 3 ) THE complainant, M/s. R. M. B. Associates Limited, incorporated in the year 1982 at Calcutta, with the object of carrying on business of leasing, hire purchase, financing etc. , had its principal branch office at New Delhi, in 1991 the company decided to diversify into the business of hire purchase of consumer durables, in order of promote its business it employed the petitioner in June 1991. According to the company, the petitioner was its employee, entrusted with the duties to select dealers for supply of consumer durables as well as to look for consumers desirous of purchasing such consumer items on hire purchase basis for which he was paid salary and other emoluments by means of crossed cheques against signed vouchers. He was to procure invoices from the dealers in the names of the customers, whose names, addresses and particulars of the guarantors for them were also to be coliected by him. These consumers and their guarantors were required to signer. hire purchase documents and other forms prescribed by the company.

( 4 ) AS per the procedure and practice followed by the company, the consumer was required to pay 25% to 30% of the cost of the item, as mentioned in the invoices of the dealer, towards the margin money and the balance amount, including hire purchase charges fixed by the company, were to be paid by the consumer in agreed fixed instalments. The margin money and the monthly instalments, incorporated in the documents, to be signed by the consumer, was to be collected by the petitioner. On petitioner s submitting the aforesaid agreement forms and the related hire purchase documents, duly completed and signer by the customer and his guarantor, along with the margin money, the documents were then signed by one of the Directors or the President of the company, whereafter a crossed cheque, for the amount as mentioned in the invoice, used to be issued by the company in the name of the dealer or the customer as per the representation of the petitioner, who was to arrange for the supply and delivery of the items to the consumer. The simple crossed cheques, issued by the company in favour of the selling dealers in the full amount of the value of the item (s) as per the invoices used to be entrusted to the petitioner for arranging supply of the consumer durables by the dealer concerned to the customers.

( 5 ) THE modus operand! of the petitioner has been explained in the charge sheet thus : the petitioner would present to the company invoices in the names of fictitious customers, purported to have been issued by the dealer M/s. Kumar Electronics, identified by him for the purpose of supplying consumer items; the company would issue cheques for payment of the invoiced amount and entrust the same to the petitioner for handing to the said Kumar Electronics against delivery of the ordered items; the crossed cheques issued by the company in favour of the said Kumar Electronics were deposited in a fictitious account opened by the petitioner in the name of M/s. Kumar Electronics in the fictitious name of one Gurmeet Singh Walia; the petitioner had authorisation in his name to operate the said account; the petitioner had opened yet anothe