JUDGMENT G.N.H. Guttal, J.- This writ petition by the accused in Criminal Case No. 544/S of 1985 pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court, Bhoiwada, Dadar, Bombay, is for stay of the proceedings., The charge is principally of criminal trespass on a terrace to which the Respondent/Complainant and the Petitioners/accused claim title. 2. The following facts may be taken to be undisputed: The Petitioners, Thereinafter referred to as the accused, are the owners of a building known as 'Agicha House' Wadala, Bombay. The building consists of FOUR floors. There are two flats on each floor. Adjoining each flat, there is a terrace. Admittedly, the terrace has two entrances one is from the passage of the suit flat. The second is from outside from the landing which is not part of the flat.1a The second entrance had a lock, the only key of which was always with the accused. The Complainant purchased from the accused the flat on the 3rd floor. The agreement of sale is dated 4th September 1978. The recitals describe the property as a flat on the third floor- admeasuring about 800 sq. ft". This description of the flat is qualified by the words "shown in red in the plan annexed hereto"; The case of the accused is that the plan did not at the time of execution have the lineation2 in red and the original agreement delivered to the Complainant did not have the red delineation3. The accused who always claimed that they had not sold the terrace but only the flat noticed, that the Complainant was carrying building material to his flat. The Complainant latched the terrace door from inside. Since the accused apprehended that the Complainant was likely to construct on the terrace they wanted to enter the terrace. The Complainant refused to unlatch the door providing entrance into the terrace from outside from where the accused had the entry into the terrace. This incident occurred on 10-3-1985. The police considered it to be a civil dispute and registered N.C. complaints at the instance of the rival parties. Therefore, the Complainant decided to agitate his right to the terrace as a civil right and filed Suit No. 1565 of 1985 in the Bombay City Civil Court. Suit is based on two averments4. He purchased the flat end that the flat includes the terrace. Therefore, the Complainant decided to agitate his right to the terrace as a civil right and filed Suit No. 1565 of 1985 in the Bombay City Civil Court. Suit is based on two averments4. He purchased the flat end that the flat includes the terrace. He has been in exclusive possession of the terrace since 1978. The Complainant sought a decree of injunction restraining the accused from entering the terrace and obstructing the Complainant from putting up a monsoon shed thereon. In the Notice of Motion No. 1167 of 1985 in that suit for interim injunction, the Bombay City Civil Court considered whether the terrace had been in exclusive possession of the Complainant. But the learned judge found "it is not possible at this stage to believe one party or disbelieve the other party because none of the parties could be cross-examined at this stage". Nevertheless, on a construction of the agreement of sale, the interim relief was granted to the Complainant. Not satisfied with the Civil Court's verdict on the interim relief which protected the Complainant's use of the terrace, he filed the Criminal Case No. 544/S of 1985. In the complaint, the Complainant relies upon the admission of the accused in the proceedings of the Civil Court. The accused had admitted that he did forcibly enter the terrace. 3. In the first place, it is necessary to understand what the Bombay City Civil Court in Suit No. 1565 of 1985 and the Criminal Court in Case No. 544/S of 1985 are called upon to decide. The Criminal Court is primarily required to decide whether the Complainant was in possession on 10-3-1985. The Complainant bases his case on the document of sale dated 4-9-1978. The offence of trespass being an offence against possession, the Criminal Court cannot decide the complaint without holding that either of the parties was in possession. The Civil Court which is called upon to grant the injunction is required to adjudicate upon the same question. Without adjudicating upon whether the Complainant was in possession, it cannot make the decree for injunction. For the purpose of such adjudication, it will consider the effect of possession of the key of latch by the accused, why the Complainant had to latch the terrace from inside, the effect of the separate entrance which the accused used and other evidence. Without adjudicating upon whether the Complainant was in possession, it cannot make the decree for injunction. For the purpose of such adjudication, it will consider the effect of possession of the key of latch by the accused, why the Complainant had to latch the terrace from inside, the effect of the separate entrance which the accused used and other evidence. On a totality of these considerations, there is no doubt that the learned Magistrate and the Bombay City Civil Court are about to decide the same question. 4. In what cases the Criminal Proceedings be stayed pending disposal of Civil Proceedings? The following judicial principles are well known: (i) The interests of justice which are opposed to multiplicity of proceedings on the same facts, is of primary importance. (ii) The Court must consider whether one of the proceedings was instituted with a view to prejudice or embarass the opposite party. In this connection which of the two proceedings was instituted first is an important but not a conclusive factor. (iii) Whether the object of instituting the criminal proceeding was to use it as a lever to coerce a compromise of the Civil suit (Dhanrajman Gobindram v. The State1). 5. The Complainant is in physical occupation of the terrace. This occupation has been protected by the injunction granted by the Bombay City Civil Court. Notwithstanding this interim adjudication of the question, the Complainant chose to file the criminal complaint. There is, between the two parties, a bona fide dispute as to whether the terrace was sold to the complainant. The bona fides of the case of the Petitioners is clear from the fact that the Complainant never chose to exercise any rights supposed to have been given to him by the Agreement dated 4-9-1976 until the date of the incident. If the Complainant did not think of exercising the supposed right for eight long years, it is clear to me that the Petitioner bona fide claim that the terrace has not been sold. The Complainant's conduct supports this inference. Against this background of the bona fide dispute, essentially of a civil nature, the Complainant chose to file a complaint. An inference which I find difficult to escape is that the Complainant wants to use the criminal proceedings as a lever to coerce the Petitioners from giving up their resistance to the civil suit or otherwise yield to a compromise. 6. An inference which I find difficult to escape is that the Complainant wants to use the criminal proceedings as a lever to coerce the Petitioners from giving up their resistance to the civil suit or otherwise yield to a compromise. 6. As already stated, the Complaint is principally of the offence of trespass. Trespass consists of entry into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property. The Petitioners in the civil proceedings have admitted that they did enter into the terrace forcibly. They did this because they bona fide believe that the Complainant was not the transferee of the terrace and yet he was committing acts such as erecting shed This admission made in a civil proceeding for the purpose of asserting the civil right is certain to be used by the Complainant in criminal proceedings. In fact, these admissions have been quoted in the complaint. Such admissions made at a time when there was no criminal charge can be used against the Petitioners and a conviction based on it. In my opinion, there is a clear triable civil dispute as to the title to the terrace. The Petitioners and the Complainant have equal chances of success in the civil litigation. If the Petitioners are convicted on the basis of such admissions made for the purpose of asserting a civil right and thereafter, when the suit is tried, the Petitioners succeed in proving their title to the terrace and demolishing the Complainant's case that the terrace was sold to him, the conviction would leave irretrievable stigma on the character of the Petitioners. No amount of success in proving their title will remove that stigma. Therefore, in this case, it is necessary to stay the criminal proceedings and prevent the likelihood irretrievable stigma to the character of the Petitioners. If the Petitioners are sentenced to imprisonment, the time spent in prison cannot be got back even after they succeed in proving their title. 7. The nature of the right that the Petitioners and the Complainant are agitating in the civil suit involves the interests of justice which require that they should fight only one litigation, viz. the civil suit. The interests of justice in this case are opposed to multiplicity of the proceedings on the same facts. 7. The nature of the right that the Petitioners and the Complainant are agitating in the civil suit involves the interests of justice which require that they should fight only one litigation, viz. the civil suit. The interests of justice in this case are opposed to multiplicity of the proceedings on the same facts. The history of the litigation leaves no doubt that the Complainant has instituted the proceedings only to embarass and prejudice the Petitioners. It is not in the interests of justice that the criminal proceedings go on before the civil rights are determined. This would be clear from the fact the complainant, successful in getting temporary injunction, filed the complaint. Significantly, the suit was earlier in point of time and has given to the complainant, the protection of injunction. 8. The learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court has based his decision to grant injunction to the Complainant on consideration of the agreement. According to the Petitioners, the terrace, in question, is permitted to be used by the Complainant "like other flat owners". The words "like other flat owners" occur in Clause 13 of the Agreement. Admittedly, each flat has such a terrace. One construction is that these words imply that the use of the terrace to which the Complainant is entitled under Clause 13 is limited to the terrace on the fourth floor which is open terrace and common to the whole building. Another construction is that since each flat has a terrace, the words "like other flat owners" mean that similar terraces are allowed to be used by other flat owners although the terraces have not been transferred to them. In my opinion, both these constructions are possible. This will be done eventually when the Bombay City Civil Court adjudicates upon the question of possession. The construction put by the learned Judge of the Bombay City Civil Court, though possible, is not determinative. The other construction is that the Complainant can use the terrace outside the flat in dispute just as other flat owners are allowed to use the terrace outside their respective flats. 9. Mr. Jaisinghani, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 urged that the Petitioners have suppressed the fact that the evidence in criminal case proceeded for two hours. According to him, the fact that the evidence has commenced has been suppressed I am afraid, this is not entirely true. 9. Mr. Jaisinghani, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 urged that the Petitioners have suppressed the fact that the evidence in criminal case proceeded for two hours. According to him, the fact that the evidence has commenced has been suppressed I am afraid, this is not entirely true. In paragraph no.6 of this petition, the accused have averred "the said complaint is kept for evidence and final hearing on 16-11-1989". It is, therefore, not correct to say that the fact that the complaint is kept for final hearing, has been suppressed However, for the reasons I have stated and on over all view of the matter the needs of justice, avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, prejudice to the accused and the Complainant's motivation to harass and coerce the accused are factors of overriding importance. It is not in the interest of justice that the criminal case should goon. 10. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice to stay the criminal case No. 544/S of 1985 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 13th Court at Dadar, Bombay, until disposal of Short Cause Suit No. 1565 of 1985 pending before the Bombay City Civil Court. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). 1. 72 B.L.R. 495. 1a. Plaint of the Complainant in Suit No. 1565 of 1985 in the Bombay City Civil Court - Paragraph 2. 2. Paragraph No.2, Order of the Bombay City Civil Court dated 30-4-1985 in the Notice of Motion No. 1147 of 1985 in Suit No. 1563 of 1985. 3. Paragraph 3 of the Judgment dated 30-4-1985 in the Complainant's Notice of Motion. 4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Plaint