SMT. MIRDULA SHUKLA Vs. BHUPENDRA DATTA SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order dated 15-5-1991 rendered by Metropolitan Magistrate IIIrd Kanpur in complaint dated 2.8.1990 Smt. Mirdula Vs. Bhupendra Datta Shukla and others.

(2.) In brief, the facts giving rise to the present revision seem to be in the form that there was a business carried on by the deceased husband of Smt. Mirdula Shukla which was captured by the accused respondents, may be with the help of certain misrepresentations to Smt. Mirdule Shukla. Smt, Mirdula Shukla first lodged an FIR in which final report was submitted by the police and against that final report Smt. Mirdula Shukla moved a protest application and also made a complaint, both of which were disposed by the orders dated 15.5.1991. One observation in the judgment, which is material for the purposes of the present revision, was to the effect that the facts disclosed do not constitute the offence of cheating etc. But was cause of action of civil nature. The allegations put forward in the FIR and reproduced in the order under revision are not challenged. It appears that according to the allegations of the complainant (accused elder brothers) of the deceased had sold the property of the firm for Rs. 1, 71,000.00 and had given her only Rs. 57000.00 and retained the balance. This amount has not been returned to her. Naturally these allegations do not amount to the offence of cheating and are in the nature of civil wrong.

(3.) It has urged on behalf of the applicant that the lady has been wrongly deprived of her property by the brother in laws and this Court should help her in some way. The courts always help the persons who are wronged but this is always subject to the condition that the aggrieved person approaches the Court in the right forum. Where the applicant had herself, may be for the reason of wrong advice of the counsel had brought criminal proceedings instead of civil suit, she has been less wronged by the opposite parties and more wronged by her own counsel who had received the fees from her for giving proper advice and prosecuting proper proceeding in a proper court of law. This court will not allow misuse of its authority by way of criminal prosecution just to bring pressure upon the accused persons so that they may part with some property in favour of the complainant.