The judgment establishes the precedence of criminal matters over civil proceedings and emphasizes the need for swift and sure criminal justice, while also highlighting that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for staying civil or criminal proceedings.

1. Parties through their counsel. The present petition has been filed against the order dated 12-11-2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 by the III Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Shajapur.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners have filed a civil suit i.e. Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014 before the III Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Shajapur for declaration, mandatory injunction, possession and mesne profit. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 31-03-2011 from respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. It is stated in the present writ petition that the respondent No. 5 has filed some complaint against the vendor of the property along with the present petitioners, alleging commencement of offence u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471, 475, 34 of IPC and the learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the complaint and the proceedings are going on in criminal case ST No. 316/2013 and which is pending in Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur. In Civil case i.e. Civil Suit No. 37-A/2014, an application was preferred u/S. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the trial court has stayed the proceedings of the suit. The basic question before this court is whether on account of pendency of criminal case, a civil suit can be stayed or not? Sec. 10 and Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:

"Section 10: Stay of suit-No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same tide where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in India having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of India established or continued by the Central Government and having like jurisdiction, or before the Supreme Court.

Explanation - The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in India from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action.

Section 151 : Saving of inherent powers of Court - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court."

3. The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear that the statute does not provide for stay of civil suit on account of pendency of a criminal case. The trial court based upon the judgment delivered in the case of M.S. Sheriff and another v/s. State of Madras and others, reported in AIR 1954 SC 397 has passed the impugned order.

4. This court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. The paragraphs 15 and 16 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

"15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule ban be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.

16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; 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. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let