1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5095 OF 2009 Rangrao Raosaheb Alavekar ...Petitioner vs. Vishwas Sakharam Mane ...Respondent Mr.Vijay Killedar for the petitioner Mr.Amit Shete i/b Mr.A.B.Borkar for the respondent CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JANUARY 15, 2010 P.C. 1 The petitioner who is the original defendant has taken an exception to the order dated 8 th December 2008 passed by the trial Court in a suit filed by the respondent. The suit has been filed by the respondent in the year 2001 seeking damages on account of alleged defamation. There is a private complaint filed on the basis of the same allegation by the respondent against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned order, an application made by the petitioner for stay of the suit till the disposal of the criminal complaint filed by the respondent has been rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that on the basis of the same allegations the respondent had filed a private complaint in the year 2001. He stated that the complaint was dismissed and thereafter, a new private complaint has been filed by the respondent in the year 2002. He pointed out that after the dismissal of the earlier complaint, the petitioner filed written statement and the subsequent complaint on the basis of 2 which the stay was sought has been filed after the written statement of the petitioner was taken on record. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has committed an error by relying upon the fact that the written statement has been filed. He submitted that the written statement was filed when there was no complaint pending. He stated that only an affidavit in lieu of evidence of the respondent has been filed and no further evidence has been recorded in the suit. 3 I have considered the submissions. Normally, the ground for seeking stay of Civil proceedings till the disposal of the Criminal proceedings is that defendant who is an accused in the Criminal proceedings should not be compelled to disclose his defence. In the present case, it is true that when the written statement was filed by the petitioner, earlier complaint was already disposed of. Admittedly, a fresh private complaint has been filed in the year 2002 on the basis of the same allegations. By filing the written statement, the defence of the petitioner has been already disclosed. Moreover, the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the respondent has been already filed in the suit. Considering the above facts, the trial Court has rightly declined to exercise discretionary power of staying the suit till the disposal of the criminal complaint. 4 In view of factual position disclosed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE