ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. This is a revision against the order dated 2-8-1986, passed in Civil Suit No. 11-A/83. by the Xth Additional Judge, to the Court of District Judge, Indore, whereby the trial Court stayed the proceedings of the Civil Suit till pendency of the Criminal Proceedings pending against the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 under S. 407 and 420, IPC. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,65,754.70 on the ground that the bill of exchange issued by the defendant No. 1. were dishonoured. It was, however, urged by the Bank that the defendants are jointly and sevcrally liable for payment to the Bank on various grounds made in the plaint. Prior to the filing of the suit, admittedly, criminal complaint was filed by the plaintiff Bank against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 under Ss. 407 and 420, I.P.C. After filing of the written-statement, the defendants moved an application under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 1st March, 1986, wherein it was stated that the Criminal Case No. 953/82, is pending in the Court of First Judicial Magist-rate, Indore on the same allegations, which are in the suit and in case, the suit is allowed to proceed, their defence will be prejudiced. The reply was filed by the plaintiff on 5-4-1986. After hearing the parties, the trial Court found that allegations are common in the criminal complaint as well as in the suit. The Court relying upon the case of the Apex Court in Sheriff v. State of Madras AIR 1954 SC 397 ., and on another case of this Court reported in Mohanlal v. Sheo-ram C. R. No. 27/86., after considering the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made in the suit held that if the civil Suit is allowed to proceed the defendants, who are accused in the criminal proceedings will be prejudiced by disclosure of their defence. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff Bank has come up before this Court in revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Bank is that as the written statement was filed, the defence has already been disclo-sed. Therefore, no question of prejudice or embarrassment in facing the criminal trial arises. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff Bank has come up before this Court in revision. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Bank is that as the written statement was filed, the defence has already been disclo-sed. Therefore, no question of prejudice or embarrassment in facing the criminal trial arises. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the Bank relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court delivered in M/s. Economic Packing v. M/s. Mount Metur Pharmaceuticals 1981 JLJ SN 24., decided on 9-3-1987. 3. Shri Waghmare, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant, defendants, contended that in revision no interference is called for, as the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court judiciously after appreciating the pleadings, complaint and respective submissions by the parties before the trial Court. Not only this, learned counsel for the parties agreed before the trial Court that the grounds in criminal case as well as of the Civil Suit are the same. In the circumstances, his contention is that there is no difference in the facts constituting the causes of action for two different proceedings except one is for recovery of the amount and another is for punishing the defend-ants-accused for the alleged offences said to have been committed by them. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in Sheriffs case (Supra) and Mohan Lal's case of this Court (Supra). Besides, he also relied upon number of unreported judgments passed in Punjab National Bank v. Hardeo Motilal & Engg.C. R. No. 298/86; 9-12-1986. Mohanlal v. Sheoram C. R. No. 1170/80; 16-1-1981., Prahlad Singh and Another v. Anoop Singh C. R. No. 369/8C; 9-2-1982., and Nemichand s/o Shantilal v. Mahavir Kumar C. R. No. 719/80; 3-2-1981.. By lending support from the various cases referred to above, Shri Waghmare, learned counsel submitted that filing of written statement is no bar for stay of trial of Civil suit because the prejudice and embarrassment will arise at the time of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and while leading evidence in defence. 4. After hearing of the counsel of both the parties, and on perusal of the record of the trial Court, 1 am of the opinion that this revision deser-ves to be dismissed. 4. After hearing of the counsel of both the parties, and on perusal of the record of the trial Court, 1 am of the opinion that this revision deser-ves to be dismissed. The petitioner Bank has not come with the case that admission recorded by the trial Court that the grounds in both the cases i e. in plaint in Civil Suit and in criminal complaint, are the same is incorrect. No ground has been raised either in the revision petition nor any affidavit has been filed by the counsel, who argued the application. Hence, submission at this stage that ground are not the same cannot be considered See case of Apex Court Gauri Shankar v. M/s. Hindustan Transport (Pvt.) Ltd AIR 1972 SC 2091 ., and the report of this Court reported in Deendayal v. Sitaram and Ors. 1983 JLJ 342 .. Besides, cause of action in both the cases, depends upon the Bills of exchange and delivery of goods fraudulently without payment. The remedies adopted are different. One remedy is for relisation of money and the other is for punish-ment. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the defendants will not face embarrassment or prejudice, during the trial particularly at the time of recording of evidence and defence. The case of M/s. Economic Packing Corp. (supra) is of no help to the applicant Bank because the facts enumerated in the case are entirely different. There in a suit for recovery of the amount, under 0. 37, R. 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, leave to de-fend was sought by the detendant and thereafter, the defendant moved the application under S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for staying the pro-ceeding of the suit in view of the criminal proceedings pending against the defendants. After considering all the pleadings, this Court held that causes of action in suit and in criminal case are different, and as such no prejudice or embarrassement is likely to be caused to the respondents in view of the admitted position of receipt of the goods. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Sherif (supra) in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment held that................As between the civil and criminal proce-edings the criminal matters should be given precedence. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Sherif (supra) in paras 15 and 16 of the judgment held that................As between the civil and criminal proce-edings the criminal matters should be given precedence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down, the possibility of confiicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is not a relevant consideration. The only relevant considera-tion is the likelihood of embarrassment. Another factor is that a civil suit often drags on for years and a criminal prosecution should not wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. In particular cases also if the Court finds expedient and just to say the civil suit considering the facts of both the cases and stage of the two proceedings. That apart, sub-clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India provides that no person who is accused of an offence shall be subjected to any testimonial compulsion contesting the civil suit by offering oneself as a witness would virtually amount to such compulsion. The inference drawn by the trial Court cannot be said to be perverse. Hence, also the order of the trial Court is proper and does not call for interference in the revisional jurisdiction. 6. Considering the above considerations, pleadings, admission of the parties that grounds in both the cases are same the Trial Court rightly exer-cised the discretion and stayed the civil suit till the pendency of the Criminal Case. But, the order of trial Court deserves a modification that the suit shall remain styed till the decision of recording of evidence of prosecution and that of defence, thereafter, the suit shall proceed. 7. With these observations 1 do not feel it proper in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, to interfere in the order impugned. At this stage, Shri Dave, learned counsel states that the amount of the Bank will pile up, as such an order for its security is warranted. Suffice it say that this is not the forum to pass any order for the security unless appropriate application is moved in the trial Court and thereafter, an order is passed on it by the said Court. 8. The result is the revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.