Short Note : 1. On 13.1.1971, one Shyamlal filed a complaint against Bihari and others before the Magistrate First Class, Sabalgarh, for prosecution of the latter five for offences under section 427 and 506 IPC alleging inter-alia that on 12.1.1971, the accused persons unauthorizedly, by show of force and threats to kill, demolished his platform. The learned Magistrate examined the complainant and his witness and ordered issue of progress against the accused persons taking cognizance of offence under section 427 IPC. The trial did not make any progress when on 30.11.1971, one of the accused persons, viz. Bihari, filed an application for stay of further proceedings on the ground that a civil action was pending between the parties with respect to the same property. Readily accepting the request, the learned trying Magistrate passed the impugned order on 15.1.1972 staying further proceedings in the criminal case. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant Shyamlal approached the Court of Sessions whereupon the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge. Morena, has made this reference for quashing the impugned order on the ground that there was no legal compulsion or any demand of propriety for staying the proceedings. Shri Tandon, Deputy Government Advocate fully supports the recommendation of the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Morena. The only reason given by the learned trying Magistrate for staying the proceedings in the criminal case in question is that the property involved is also involved in the Civil Case pending between the parties. The application filed by the accused Bihari also, does not throw any further light on the point. In the circumstances, the learned trying Magistrate had no justification whatsoever for staying further proceedings in the criminal case in question. The mere fact that the property is subject-matter of a Civil Suit would not be enough for staying a criminal action of the nature as here. Revision allowed.