1. This is a Reference under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Dacca, recommending to set aside an order dated 29-8-67 passed by Mr. M. A. Mannan, Magistrate, 1st Class Dacca, rejecting an application under section 344, Cr. P. C. For stay of further proceedings in a case under section 384/323, P. P. C.
2. The facts leading to the reference are that the complainant brought a case under section 384/323, P. P. C. Against the accused. The case was ready for hearing and a date was fixed for evidence. At this stage the accused filed a petition before the learned Magistrate under section 344, Cr. P. C. For stay of further proceedings of the said criminal case on the ground that a title suit (being T. S. No. 126- of 1966) between the parties on the self--same matter is pending in the 2nd Court of Munsiff, Dacca and the result of that Civil suit is likely to have a direct and vital bearing upon the alleged guilt or otherwise of the accused in the criminal case and hence pending disposal of the title suit, the criminal case should be stayed, the learned Magistrate, however, rejected the petition by his order dated 29-8-67. The accused challenged the propriety and legality of the said order before the Sessions Judge, Dacca and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made the present Reference.
3. It has been held in numerous cases that an indefinite post--ponement of a criminal case is undesirable, particularly when it is uncertain how long the civil Court will take to dispose of the civil suit and that an adjournment of a criminal case indefinitely against the normal trend of criminal jurisprudence and it should generally be discouraged. Vide cases reported in 20 D L R 674 and 21DLR702.
4. On the above principles, although the result of the civil suit might have some direct and vital bearing upon the alleged guilt o otherwise of the accused in the criminal case, the criminal case cannot be adjourned indefinitely. A reasonable time may, however, be allowed in such circumstances in a fit case where the decision in the Civil suit is likely to render the prosecution of the accused, for all practical purposes, infructuous. It should, however, be made clear that a Criminal case should not be stayed on the fancy desire of an interested party. In each case the question of staying the further proceedings shall always be decided by the facts, circumstances and nature of the criminal case and the civil suit pending between the parties.
5. In the instant case, the record shows that the hearing of the criminal case is held up for some reason or others since 29-8-67. In my opinion, any further adjournment of the criminal case will not be justified.
6. The learned Advocate appearing in support of the reference has frankly conceded that he tried to contact his client but failed to get any information as to the present position of the civil suit. The trial of the criminal case having been held up since 29-8-67, the accused could very well proceed with the civil suit and get it decided in the meantime. The suit is an old one of 1966. The disposal of the criminal case has already been delayed and I do not consider it desirable to adjourn it further for the sake of the civil suit, if any, now pending.
7. In this view of the matter, I cannot accept the reference and it is accordingly rejected.