Order.- This is an application by the three accused in C.C.No. 207 of 1976 on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada, to grant stay of all further proceedings in the original case till the final disposal of O.S. No. 66 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada. 2. This request for stay is founded on the following allegations. Sobhana films represented by Sri Chandrakant Shyamaldas Shah preferred a complaint against the petitioners stating that they intended to sell and the complainant intended to purchase the lease rights to a cinema picture for the ceded districts. The complainant believed the representation of the accused that the print copy No. 10 of the film would be given to him for explotitation in ceded districts. Believing the representation he paid all the moneys as agreed in the agreement. However, the accused gave him Copy No. 18 which was very bad for exploitation, thereby causing loss to him. They cheated him and therefore they should be tried and punished for cheating. Latter he filed O.S. No. 66 of 1977 in the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Vijayawada to recover from as many as 7 defendants a large sum of more than one lakh rupees including the claim for damages, which is to the extent of Rs. 80,000. It is alleged in the stay petition that since the averments, in the criminal case as well as in the civil suit are practically the same, trial of the criminal case may be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit, which is a more comprehensive matter where the entire evidence would be adduced. 3. This is opposed by the learned public prosecutor stating that only A-1 and A-3 are two of the 7 defendants in the suit, that the facts are not identical, and that in the civil suit there are several claims under different heads including damages which are in no way related to the case which will have to be tried in the criminal Court. He further contends that criminal cases shall not be stayed till after the disposal of the civil suits which are likely to take considerable time. 4. He further contends that criminal cases shall not be stayed till after the disposal of the civil suits which are likely to take considerable time. 4. Sri Veerabhadrayya for the petitioners invites my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sherif v. State of Madras1, and that of a single Judge of Patna High Court in Nandu Babu v. Rajendra Kumar2. The learned Public Prosecutor relies on a single Judge’s decision of this Court in J. Venkatrayudu v. E.V. Subbaiah3. I briefly refer to these decisions in order to appreciate the principles that guide the disposal of this matter. Bose,J., speaking for the Supreme Court in M.S. Sherif v. State of Madras4, observed thus: “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 in India, on this point. No hard and fast rule can 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 taking 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.” In the Patna case5, the learned single Judge distinguishing the Supreme Court’s decision observed that facts of each case are to be considered before any order of stay can be passed. Then the learned Judge pointed out the distinction between the facts of the Supreme Court case4, and the facts of the case before him. Finally the learned Judge said that on a consideration of the facts and circumstances, it was expedient in the nature of things to stay the criminal proceedings in question till the same matter was decided by the Calcutta High Court in the commercial suit. Finally the learned Judge said that on a consideration of the facts and circumstances, it was expedient in the nature of things to stay the criminal proceedings in question till the same matter was decided by the Calcutta High Court in the commercial suit. Ananthanarayana Ayyar, J., who decided the case in J. Venkatrayudu v. E.V. Subbaiah4, after a review of the entire case law in the matter, observed at page 177: “It is therefore clear from the above decisions that stay of trial of a criminal case can be granted pending disposal of the civil suit in suitable cases where facts and circumstances show the stay to be necessary to avoid any embarrassment in the conduct of the criminal proceedings.” The principles which emerge from all these decisions are that there is no hard and fast rule while considering application for stay of criminal cases pending civil suits. Each case will have to be decided on its own facts. The only relevant consideration is whether there is any likelihood of embarrassment. 5. Applying that principle to the facts of the case, I do not see any embarrassment if the criminal case is disposed of first. It should be remembered as Bose, J., has observed in Sherif’s case5that the decision of one Court does not bind the other or is even relevant except for the purpose of sentence or damages. Examining the contentions in both the cases, the claim in the civil suit is much larger in scope involving a huge sum and several claims including a substantial claim for damages. There are as many as 7 defendants in the suit who are said to be partners in the firm of the accused in the criminal case. Only A-1 and A-3 are shown as two of the defendants in the suit. The averments in the suit are of wider scope and in several matters substantially different. That is so because the claims made in the suit are under different heads. On the other hand, the simple question in the criminal case is whether the accused gave a different copy of the film other than the one which was agreed between the parties. In these circumstances, 1 do not see any embarrassment if the criminal case is disposed of. The criminal case is one of 1976 and the civil suit has just been instituted. In these circumstances, 1 do not see any embarrassment if the criminal case is disposed of. The criminal case is one of 1976 and the civil suit has just been instituted. If the former is stayed for the sake of the latter, it is manifest that its disposal may take considerable time. This delay would be caused without serving any purpose. 6. For these reasons, I dismiss the application.