( 1 ) THIS Criminal Revision is brought under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code and is directed against order dated January 23, 1988 of Shri K. S. Pal, Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by which he had directed stay of proceedings in a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 500 Indian Penal Code against the respondent till disposal of the petition brought under Section 25 and 27 of the Special Marriage Act by the respondent against the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE criminal complaint was filed by the petitioner who is wife of the respondent under Section 500 Indian Penal Code on the allegation that respondent has made grossly defamatory false allegations against the petitioner in the petition filed by respondent seeking divorce from the petitioner on the ground of adultery and such allegations have effected thel reputation of the petitioner in the eyes of the people and has lowered the petitioner in the esteems of the members of the society in which the petitioner is accustomed to move.

( 3 ) IT appears that after recording preliminary evidence the Magistrate bad issued summons to the respondent and the said order of the Magistrate was challenged by the respondent by filing the criminal revision petition in this court in which a statement was made by the counsel for the respondent (petitioner in that case) that an application would be moved before the Magistrate seeking stay of the criminal case till the disposal of the. civil matter. After the necessary order of stay was made by the Magistrate the said petition seeking quashment of the proceedings in the Criminal Complaint was withdrawn and dismissed.

( 4 ) IN the impugned order the Magistrate had opined that the interest of justice require that the criminal proceedings should be stayed in as much as respondent is liable to be prejudiced in the trial of his divorce petition if criminal proceedings are continued simultaneously alongwith divorce case He has opined that the findings to be given in the divorce case would have a lot of bearing on the criminal proceedings. It is indeed not disputed before me that if the respondent in the divorce petition is able to show on merits that allegations made by him as ground for seeking divorce are correct then obviously the respondent would not be liable to be convicted for offence of defamation. As a matter of fact, the result of the civil proceedings would be determinative of the criminal complaint pending before the Magistrate.

( 5 ) THE counsel for the petitioner, however, has vehemently contended that it is settled law that the criminal proceedings particularly should take place expeditiously and it should not be stayed till the disposal of the civil matters. He places reliance on M. S. Sherieff and Anr. v-State of Madras and Ors. , A. I. R. 1954 Supreme Court 397, Kishore Kumar and Ors. v. The State 1983 (23) D. L. T. 121, and unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 334/73 decided on June 7, 1984 by Prithvi Raj, J.

( 6 ) THE Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has laid down that as between civil and criminal proceedings criminal matters should be given precedence but no hard and fast rule can be laid down and the possibility of conflicting decision of the Civil and Criminal Courts is not a relative consideration. The Supreme Court further observed that the public interest demands that the criminal justice should be as swift and sure and that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial and another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. However, the Sureme Court itself held that this, however, is not a hard and fast rule and special consideration obtaining in any particular case might necessitate some other course more expedient and just. It was also laid down that if simultaneous prosecut