This revision is directed against the order dated 4.9.81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati whereby the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 715C of 1978 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Gauhati were stayed. (2) Briefly, the facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner complainant had filed a complaint under sections 468/471/ 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party alleging that the opposite party had fraudulently forged a sale deed dated 10.3.76 in respect of 3 kathas of land, purporting to have been executed by the complainant's mother. After the complaint was filed, the complainant's mother had filed a civil suit which was Title Suit No. 70/78 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge at Gauhati, and sought declaration and recovery of possession of the suit land and injunction against the present opposite party. The opposite party then moved the learned trial Court for stay of the proceedings in the complaint case. The learned trial Court by order dated 4.2.81 rejected the prayer. Thereupon the opposite party filed a revision which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge by the order dated 4.9.81 which is impugned in this revision. (3) Aggrieved, the complainant has come to ibis Court and Mr. A. R. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on his behalf, has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge had grievously erred in staying the proceedings in the criminal case which should be expeditiously decided particularly when the matters in issue in the civil suit would not cover the questions raised in the criminal case where the question would be that whether the opposite party had committed the offences, as alleged, and that in any case the judgment in civil suit would not conclude the questions for consideration in the criminal case. On the other hand, Shri P. Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the impugned order. (4) I have considered the respective submissions of the parties. On the other hand, Shri P. Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party has supported the impugned order. (4) I have considered the respective submissions of the parties. While there may be no doubt that criminal proceedings should be expeditiously decided and may not ordinarily be stayed and also that under section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceeding may be postponed or adjourned yet there should also be no doubt that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to make appropriate order in such matters, i. e. that where it is necessary in the interest of justice, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings an order in the nature of the impugned order may in appropriate cases be made. It is therefore to be seen that whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the impugned order was justified, and is correct. (5) It is not disputed that the land in question belonged to the complainant's mother, that a sale deed dated 10. 3. 76 purporting to transfer the said land in favour of the opposite party was executed on the basis of which the opposite party obtained mutation in revenue records and is in its possession. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had filed the complaint on the authority of a power of attorney from his mother. The complainant alleges that the sale deed is forged and the opposite party has committed offences punishable under sections 468/471/120(B) IPC. The suit which the mother of the complainant has filed, challenged the aforesaid sale deed as having been obtained fraudulently by defendant, the present opposite party. It should be clear that in reality and substance the complainant is the mother of the complainant, for it is on the strength of the power of attorney from the mother that the complaint has been filed. The parties therefore in the two proceedings are very substantially and in reality the same. The matter which shall require consideration in the civil suit that is that whether the sale deed was obtained by fraud shall also determine the question that whether or not the sale deed dated 10.3.76 was genuine transaction of sale or was fraudulently obtained and was forged to be considered in the criminal case. The matter which shall require consideration in the civil suit that is that whether the sale deed was obtained by fraud shall also determine the question that whether or not the sale deed dated 10.3.76 was genuine transaction of sale or was fraudulently obtained and was forged to be considered in the criminal case. It should be clear that the findings of fact which may be arrived at in the civil suit shall between the parties conclusively decide the question to be gone into in the criminal case. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding in the civil suit shall not be binding on the criminal court is not correct for it is well established and settled principle of law that between the parties the finding of the civil court would be binding on the criminal court on the questions decided in the civil suit. (6) Shri Banarjee argued that in the criminal case the questions to be seen are that whether the alleged offence was committed or not. While it is so, there should be no doubt that the facts found in the civil suit shall also decide the question that whether any act constitution the offence was committed. (7) In my opinion, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was quite correct in taking the view that the proceedings in the criminal case should be stayed. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition fails. (8) The revision is dismissed. The records be sent back to the trial Court immediately.