JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith on the request of the learned counsel for the parties. 2.The petitioners are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No. 19 of 1996 filed by the respondent original plaintiff for recovery of damages on the allegation that the defendant published an article which contained imputations against the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff has suffered extreme injury to his reputation and profession. The suit was filed on 8-1-1996. After filing the suit, the plaintiff has filed his private complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code against the defendants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued process against the defendants in Criminal Case No. 96 of 1996. 3.It appears that the plaintiff led some evidence but the defendants at the same time applied for stay of the suit since according to the defendants simultaneous prosecution of the criminal proceeding and civil suit would embarass them. The learned trial Judge, however, rejected their application by the impugned order dated 3-3-1997. 4.Shri Indani, learned Counsel for the petitioners relying on a decision in case of (Arvind Kalidas Wadodkar v. Ramdas Devidas Joshi)1, 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 907 urged that the learned trial Judge has committed an error of law in not granting the application for stay of civil suit till disposal of criminal proceeding. 5.Shri Challani, learned Counsel for the respondent - original plaintiff, however, submits that the case on which reliance is placed is distinguishable on facts. It is urged that in Arvind's case (cited supra) the defendants did not file written statement and without filing the written statement they filed an application for stay of the suit, whereas, in the present case, the defendants have filed their written statement and allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the evidence. Secondly, Shri Challani, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in case of (Atul Chandra Bora v. M/s Assam Tea Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Gauhati)2, A.I.R. 1995 Gauhati 73 it was held that when the allegations in criminal case were clear and specific and prima facie constituted offences under I.P.C.; criminal proceedings and civil case could run side by side. The learned Counsel for the respondent further kept reliance on a decision in the case of (Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, etc.)3, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2232. The learned Counsel for the respondent further kept reliance on a decision in the case of (Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohd. Yousuf Miya, etc.)3, A.I.R. 1997 S.C. 2232. The Apex Court while dealing with the simultaneous criminal proceedings and departmental inquiry under the Industrial Disputes Act has observed that in case of criminal proceedings and departmental inquiry, stay of departmental proceeding is not warranted. 6.It may be stated that on going through the relevant case law submitted by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, the test which requires to be applied is one as two whether simultaneous prosecution and civil suit would embarass the defendant in civil suit. At the outset I may mention that the decision in case of Arvind (cited supra) contains same set of facts. It is, therefore, not possible to differ from the view taken earlier, by applying the aforesaid test, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The cases on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent are not applicable to the facts of the present case. What is important to bear in mind is the nature of criminal proceeding. In case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (cited supra) reference is made to Meena's case (1996 A.I.R. S.C.W. 4160), in which the Apex Court has elaborately considered the entire case law on the question whether it would be right to stay the criminal proceeding in the departmental enquiry. It was laid down that staying of disciplinary proceeding is a matter to be determined having regard to the facts and circumstances of a given case and that no hard and fast rule can be enunciated in that behalf. There should be a valid ground for staying the disciplinary proceeding, namely, that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But this ground may be available only in a cases of grave nature involving the question of facts and law. It, therefore, follows that where there are grave charges and case involves complicated questions of fact and law, staying of disciplinary proceeding is justified. It is thus seen that the nature of evidence in criminal trial, assumes importance. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. It, therefore, follows that where there are grave charges and case involves complicated questions of fact and law, staying of disciplinary proceeding is justified. It is thus seen that the nature of evidence in criminal trial, assumes importance. It is always a question of fact to be considered in each case depending on its own facts and circumstances. In this case, the matter is altogether different not from objective of criminal proceeding and civil suit but the approach to these proceedings. Therefore, it is not possible to apply the same test as is applicable for staying the departmental proceeding. 7.In Atul Chandra's case (cited supra) the facts are also distinguishable. The accused in Atul Chandra's case was facing the criminal proceeding under sections 403, 406, 408, 417, 418, 420, 424, 477-A 511 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The suit was however, filed for recovery of amount, which was mis-appropriated. The Court, therefore, took a view that in the nature of proceeding and evidence, both the proceedings could be proceeded simultaneously, especially where the charges in criminal case were clear to constitute an offence. In the present case, there involves a complicated question of law and fact and therefore, principle embodied in (M.S. Shariff v. State of Madras)4, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 397 followed in Arvind's case (cited supra) has to be applied, namely that, where it is shown that if the simultaneous prosecution of civil suit and criminal proceeding would embarass the defendant, the civil suit is required to be stayed. 8.In the result the revision is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside and the civil suit is stayed till the disposal of the criminal complaint. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon is directed to expedite hearing of the criminal complaint bearing No. 96 of 1996 registered against the petitioners-accused. Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. Revision application allowed. *****