JUDGMENT

V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application filed u/s 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings pending in the court of the City Magistrate, Kanpur.

2. The facts out of which this application arises are that the opposite party Janak Lal borrowed a sum of Rs. 3000/- on the 16-7-1952 against two hundis, one for Rs. 1600/-and the other for Rs. 1400/- respectively. He further borrowed on the 1st December 1952 a sum of Rs. 3,000/- against another hundi for the said amount. These hundis were all executed in favour of Smt. Junia wife of the present applicant. It was alleged that when demand was made from the opposite party he neither paid the interest nor the principal, and thereafter the three hundis were protested by the Notary Public for the recovery of the sum so paid by Smt. Junia and a suit, No. 1602 of 1954, is pending in the court of the City Munsif, Kanpur. Soon after the suit was filed, it is alleged, as a counter blast, Janak Lal filed a criminal complaint against the applicant Under Sections 406 and 420, I.P.C.

3. The complaint was filed on the allegations that the amount of the two hundis, Rs. 3000/- was paid by executing the other hundi for Rs. 2000/-, and paying the balance in cash to the applicant and the second hundi of Rs. 2000/- had also been paid later on to the applicant, but the applicant did not credit these amounts and retained the khokhas, i.e., the discharged hundis, and thereby committed an offence by filing the aforementioned suit against Janak Lal upon the basis of the hundis which had already been repaid. The aforesaid complaint was transferred to the court of Shri Ramanuj, Magistrate 1st Clast Kanpur and is pending there.

4. The defence of the applicant in the case is a total denial of receipt of any sum alleged to have been paid in respect of the hundis in question by Janak Lal. It was further denied that the hundi for Rs. 2,000/- was executed by Janak Lal towards part payment of the previous hundis, but that it was really afresh loan. Evidence u/s 252, Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded and the statement of the accused has also been recorded.

5. The two questions that arise for decision in the criminal case are:

(1) Whether the hundis of Rs. 1600/-and Rs. 1400/- have been paid by Janak Lal?

(2) Whether the hundi of Rs. 2000/- was executed by Janak Lal in part satisfaction of the hundis for Rs. 1600/- and Rs. 1400/- referred to above, or it was executed in consideration of Rs. 2000/- by him in cash? The very same questions will arise in the civil suit which has been previously filed by Smt. Junia against Janak Lal. It is true that Smt. Junia is not a party to these criminal proceedings and the applicant Bhagwan Das is not a patty to the civil suit. But it is admitted on all hands that Bhagwan Das has been doing money tending business through his wife Smt. Junia and the allegation in this civil suit will also be that the payment was made to Bhagwan Das for these hundis and not to Smt. Junia. On this basis an application was made to the learned Magistrate for staying the criminal proceedings pending in his court, on the ground that the civil suit was filed earlier, and that the subject matter of the disputes was common. It was also alleged that the dispute being of a civil nature it would be expedient in the interest of justice that the matter be decided by the civil court.

6. The learned Magistrate did not accept the contention of the applicant and rejected the application, and the learned Sessions Judge in criminal revision while accepting the contention of the applicant that the points in dispute ware similar rejected the application on the ground that since the parties in the two cases were different the proceedings could not be stayed. It has been held over and over again by this Court that it is not proper that both Criminal and Civil proceedings regarding the same matter should be allowed to continue side by side. I cannot be doubted that these criminal proceedings h