Judgment A.R. Chatterjee, J. This revisional application is directed against an order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the petitioners, who are accused in a case before him under s. 409 I.P.C. to stay proceeding till disposal of a civil action brought by the de facto complainant who is present opposite party no. 2, against one of the petitioners and a bank in the circumstances as under. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the petitioners had entered into a conspiracy and induced the said opposite party to deliver 32 diesel engines for sale on a commission basic, but since this was not done even for about two years the said opposite party insisted on return of the engines. Accordingly, 19 engines were retuned but the said opposite party came to know that 12 engines were hypothecated with Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited against which the petitioners had borrowed a substantial amount. In this way it was alleged that the petitioners had committed breach of trust in respect of the balance engines. 3. The contention of the petitioners was that they are partners of a firm which placed orders on the said opposite party for 32 engines which were delivered but it was found that the engines were not according to specification and were also old and used for a considerable period, Out of these 32 engines, 12 were sold to the firm the petitioners, price for which was duly paid to the opposite party no. 2. He was also asked by the petitioners to take back the remaining engines and 19 were returned to the said opposite party who duly granted a receipt for the same. Now the said opposite party had brought a civil action in the City Civil Court against the present petitioner no. 3 and the bank referred to above inter alia, for declaration of title of the said opposite party to 13 engines alleging inter alia that the petitioner no. 3 denied to have received 13 engines and converted the same to his ulterior gain. The petitioners made a prayer before the learned Magistrate for staying the criminal case till disposal of the civil suit stated above on the ground that if the criminal case is allowed to proceed there will be miscarriage of justice and the interest of the petitioners will be jeopardised. The petitioners made a prayer before the learned Magistrate for staying the criminal case till disposal of the civil suit stated above on the ground that if the criminal case is allowed to proceed there will be miscarriage of justice and the interest of the petitioners will be jeopardised. The learned Magistrate in rejecting the prayer has mainly relied upon certain observations of the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff's case, AIR 1954 SC 396 , to the effect that as between civil and criminal proceedings the criminal matters should be given precedence. The learned Magistrate had also pointed ant that the criminal case was instituted before the civil suit was filed and further the parties in the two proceedings were not identical. 4. In M.S. Sheriff's case (supra), on which the learned Magistrate has placed reliance, Their Lordships while observing that as between the civil and criminal proceedings the latter should be given precedence have also observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down and in that particular case the view was taken that civil suit should be stayed till the criminal proceedings were concluded. Their Lordships also pointed out that the possibility of conflicting decision in the civil and criminal courts was not a relevant consideration but the likelihood of embarrassment was. Therefore it is by no means correct to say that any general proposition was laid down that the civil suit should make way for the criminal case and this question can only be decided on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The same question had come up in this court in the case of J.M. Locus v. Official Assignee of Bengal 24 CWN 418 wherein Jenkins, C.J. speaking for the court had observed that it was too well known to need elaboration that the criminal proceedings lend themselves to the unscrupulous application of improper pressure with a view to influencing the course of the civil proceeding and it was thought proper in the facts of that particular case that the civil suit should be given precedence over the criminal case which was therefore liable to be stayed. This view was also quoted with approval by a Division Bench of this Court in Joy Narayan Mishra v. The State & anr. 1966 Cri. LJ 207. This view was also quoted with approval by a Division Bench of this Court in Joy Narayan Mishra v. The State & anr. 1966 Cri. LJ 207. Joy Narayan's case (supra) and also the decision of the Patna High Court in Nundu Sabu v. Rajendra Kumar Singh 1970 Cri. LJ 1574, in which also the criminal case was stayed pending the disposal of a civil suit were cited before the learned Magistrate but he had distinguished those cases from the present one on the ground that in those cases the civil suits were brought prior to the commencement of the criminal prosecution while in the instant case the civil action had followed the criminal case. The ground for making the distinction cannot, however, be sustained not only because of repeated pronouncements that no hard and fast rule could be laid down in the matter but also because in none of the two cases referred to by the learned court below, was the criminal case stayed because of its institution subsequent to the civil section. 5. In the instant case as already pointed out the petitioners contend that the disputed engines were purchased by their firm for which price was duly paid to the opposite party no. 2 and he had brought a civil action against one of the present petitioners and a bank for declaration of title to all the 13 engines in respect at which breach of trust is alleged to have been committed. Thus it appears that the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature and in such circumstances this dispute has to be settled before any question of criminal liability can be satisfactorily adjudicated upon. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Balak Brahmachari's case, AIR 1974 SC 290 in which Their Lordships in dismissing an appeal by Special Leave against an appellate order of acquittal had observed that it was not possible to fasten criminal liability in respect of certain properties beyond reasonable doubt before the right and title to such property was established by means of a civil suit. In the case before us also there cannot by any finding regarding criminal liability of the petitioners before the question of title to the disputed engine is decided by a civil court which is already in seisin of the matter and accordingly this criminal case should be stayed till disposal of the civil suit. This position will also follow if the test of likelihood of embarrassment as laid down by the Supreme Court in M.S. Sheriff's case (supra) is applied, because if the criminal case is allowed to proceed and ends either in conviction or in acquittal it may be embarrassing for the civil court to take a proper decision on the evidence which may be adduced before it. On the other hand if the criminal case is stayed and the civil suit is allowed to proceed the decree in such suit will not in any way cause any embarrassment to the criminal court. Thus in any view of the matter it must be held in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the criminal case should be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit brought by the opposite party no. 2. 6. The learned Magistrate has pointed out that the parties in the two proceedings were not identical. This is not a criterion to decide whether the criminal case should be stayed or net. One of the petitioners is no doubt a defendant in the suit filed by the opposite party no. 2 and since it is found that the dispute is essentially of a civil nature and since the civil court will decide the question of right and title in respect of all the 13 engines the criminal case has to be stayed notwithstanding the fact that the parties in the two proceedings are not absolutely identical. 7. On the aforesaid premises the revisional application is allowed and the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 1.9.88 is set aside and he is directed to record stay of the instant criminal proceeding till disposal of the Title Suit no. 2292 of 1986 pending in the City Civil Court at Calcutta. Application allowed; Criminal Case stayed till disposal of the civil suit.