Judgment :- 1. This is an application by the 3rd accused in C.C. 24 of 1954 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, Quilon, to stay the proceedings in the said case till the disposal of O.S. 40 of 1954 of the Quilon District Court. In O.S. 40 of 1954 the present applicant is the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff in that suit is the complainant in C.C. 24 of 1954 and the 1st counter-petitioner in this Criminal M.P. O.S. 40 of 1954 was filed before C.C. 24 of 1954; and according to the petitioner, the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding are in respect of the same transactions and the criminal prosecution was launched subsequent to the institution of the civil suit merely to harass him and the other defendants in the civil suit and coerce them to agree to a compromise. The 1st counter-petitioner opposes the application. 2. From February 1953 counter-petitioners 1 and 2 were conducting a partnership business under the name and style of "Indo Ceylon Egg Supplies". O.S. 40 of 1954 was brought by the 1st counter-petitioner for dissolution of this firm after settlement of accounts and for other reliefs. In that suit the 2nd counter-petitioner was the 1st defendant and his wife was the 2nd defendant. The present petitioner and another person who were the accountants of the firm were defendants 3 and 4 and the Firm's Bank was the 5th defendant. It was alleged in the plaint that making use of certain blank letter papers signed by the plaintiff defendants 1 to 4 had forged certain documents and sent a forged letter to the 5th defendant falsely stating that the partnership had been dissolved and the accounts closed and that they had also falsified the accounts and misappropriated certain amounts. For the identical forgeries, falsification of accounts, and misappropriation and also for criminal conspiracy to commit the said offences the plaintiff in O.S. 40 of 1954 subsequently instituted C.C. 24 of 1954. In the criminal case he has applied for search and seizure of the account books and other records of the firm and also to direct the 3rd defendant to produce in court the accounts in his possession. Some of the accounts have already been produced in the civil suit and some have to be produced in the civil court in pursuance of summons already issued therefrom. Other accounts are also necessary in that case. Some of the accounts have already been produced in the civil suit and some have to be produced in the civil court in pursuance of summons already issued therefrom. Other accounts are also necessary in that case. It is in these circumstances that the 3rd defendant has applied for stay of the criminal proceeding till the disposal of the civil suit. 3. On behalf of the 1st counter-petitioner it is contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction to stay the criminal proceedings till the disposal of the civil suit, that the petitioner should first move the criminal court itself to stay the criminal proceedings and he can only come up in revision if the Magistrate refuses to stay the criminal proceeding, and that, since the main question to be decided in the criminal case is whether the accused in that case have committed the particular offences attributed to them, the subject matter of civil and criminal proceedings cannot be said to be the same. 4. In support of the contention that the High Court has no jurisdiction to stay the criminal proceeding till the disposal of the civil suit and that the Magistrate must first be moved to stay the criminal proceeding and the High Court can only revise his proceeding if he refuses to stay the criminal case, reliance has been placed upon the decisions in 24 Criminal Law Journal 640, Yalavarty Ankanna v. Pillamore Adribhotlu and 1945 T.L.R. 773, Thomas v. Chellayya Nadar. All that has been said in 24 Criminal Law Journal 640 is: "There is no appeal or petition pending in this court in this connection. This is not a case for the exercise of the extraordinary powers of this court under S. 107 of the Government of India Act. The petitioner may apply under S. 344, Criminal Procedure Code to the sub-Magistrate to postpone the trial before him pending the decision of the civil court, and if he fails to get a reasonable order he may then ask this court to revise the order so passed. The petition is dismissed". In 1945 T.L.R. 773 also no reasons have been given for holding that the motion for stay of criminal proceeding should have been first made to the trial court and not direct to the High Court. The petition is dismissed". In 1945 T.L.R. 773 also no reasons have been given for holding that the motion for stay of criminal proceeding should have been first made to the trial court and not direct to the High Court. Numerous cases have been cited at the bar in which the High Court has directly stayed the criminal proceeding and in which there had been no previous motion at all for stay of the criminal proceeding in the trial court. A recent precedent of this court is the case of Mathai v. Narayanan reported in A.I.R. 1952 T.C. 207. It has been recognised in all jurisdictions in India that the High Court has power to stay criminal proceedings pending in any subordinate court under S. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and such powers have been exercised by all the High Courts even in cases in which motion for stay had not been first made to the trial court. The scope of S. 561A has not been considered in 24 Criminal Law Journal 640. That decision does not negative the inherent power of the High Court to stay a criminal case pending the decision of a civil suit in order to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. All that appears from 24 Criminal Law Journal 640 is that the learned judge who decided that case considered it expedient in that case to direct the petitioner to apply first to the Magistrate to stay the criminal proceedings. In this connection it has also to be noted that there is no express provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising subordinate criminal courts to stay proceedings pending before them and that under S. 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure they can only postpone the commencement of the inquiry or trial or adjourn the case from time to time. In Kanhaiya Lal v. Bhagwan Das (A.I.R. 1926 Allahabad 30) in which an application for quashing the proceedings in a criminal case was made. Sulaiman, J. has observed: "Had I not come to the conclusion that these proceedings should be quashed, I would have had no hesitation in saying that these proceedings ought to be stayed pending the disposal of the civil case. Sulaiman, J. has observed: "Had I not come to the conclusion that these proceedings should be quashed, I would have had no hesitation in saying that these proceedings ought to be stayed pending the disposal of the civil case. Obviously it would be highly undesirable that the same dispute should be allowed to be fought out in two courts, namely criminal and civil courts simultaneously. The case of Mathura Kaur v. Durga Kaur, 2 A.L.J. 747, is distinguishable because there Knox, J. was only considering the power of the original court to adjourn the hearing of a criminal case before it. The inherent power of the High Court to stay proceedings is very wide and has been exercised in several cases by this Court". 5. Although the main question to be decided in the criminal case is whether the accused in C.C. 24 of 1954 have committed the particular offences attributed to them, it cannot be denied that O.S. 40 of 1954 and C.C. 24 of 1954 relate to the same transactions. The same set of documents are questioned in both cases. The forgeries and the misappropriations alleged to have been made in O.S. 40 of 1954 are also the forgeries and misappropriations for which the accused are charged in C.C. 24 of 1954. It is true that public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure that as a general rule concurrent proceedings in both criminal and civil courts cannot be said to be an abuse of process. But as pointed out in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 397 (Sheriff v. State) and 1945 T.L.R. 773 no hard and fast rule can be laid down in this matter. If the object of the criminal proceedings instituted while a civil suit in respect of the same matter is pending is in reality to prejudice the trial of the civil suit by a preliminary enquiry into the subject matter of the suit or to coerce the accused to authorise a compromise it will only be just and fair to stay the criminal proceedings. See 1945 T.L.R. 773 at 777. It has been held in 1942 Pat. 45 also (Chhanoo Prasad v. Sakhichand Sahu) that the question whether a criminal proceeding should be stayed pending a civil suit depends upon the facts of each case. See 1945 T.L.R. 773 at 777. It has been held in 1942 Pat. 45 also (Chhanoo Prasad v. Sakhichand Sahu) that the question whether a criminal proceeding should be stayed pending a civil suit depends upon the facts of each case. In 29 Criminal Law Journal 1053, Jehangir Pestonji Wadia v. Framji Rustomji Wadia, it has been observed by the Bombay High Court: "The mere pendency of a civil suit or appeal is not itself a sufficient ground for staying the criminal proceeding. But if the object of the criminal proceeding in a private prosecution is to prejudice the trial of a civil suit or to use them as a lever to coerce the accused into a compromise of a civil suit the criminal proceeding can be stayed till the decision of a civil suit." 6. In the present case, it was the civil suit which was instituted first and the criminal case was filed later by the plaintiff in the civil suit. The subsequent institution of the criminal case and the impleadment of the 1st defendant's wife would tend to show that the plaintiff is attempting to coerce the defendants and compel them to agree to some sort of compromise. It will not be possible for the defendants to defend the civil action without the documents which are sought to be seized from them. It is not only the forged documents that the plaintiff is seeking to seize but all the accounts and relevant papers in the possession of the defendants. The criminal case itself has not been investigated and charged by the Police but taken up on a private complaint filed by the plaintiff in O.S. 40 of 1954. It is admitted by the plaintiff that he had entrusted signed papers to the defendants, and therefore it would appear from the plaintiff's case itself that he had authorised the defendants to make use of the signed letter papers for some purposes. What those purposes were, have, of course, to be decided after taking evidence. In view of all these circumstances I consider it just and fair that the criminal case should not be proceeded with before the disposal of O.S. 40 of 1954. The petition is therefore allowed and C.C. 24 of 1954 is ordered to be stayed till the disposal of O.S. 40 of 1954. Allowed.