JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmad, C.J. - This is an application in revision by one Shyam Lal Goel who is the managing Director of a Company styled as Goel Brothers and Co. Ltd. The Company carries on the business of commission agents. It is common ground that one of the agents of the Company, named, Roshan Lal Gupta, travelled in these provinces with a view to secure orders for the purchase and sale of certain commodities. The contracts for the purchases and sales were in the nature of forward contracts. It is admitted that Roshan Lal Gupta secured certain orders from the complainant, Maharaj Kumar Jagat Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, who resides in Jharipani near Mussorie. The orders were for the purchase of ground nuts and cotton. All these were forward contracts. The complainant paid Rs. 2,625 as margin money to Roshan Lal Gupta. It appears that in two transactions relating to cotton there was a profit of Rs. 1,525 and in the other transactions entered into by the complainant, there was a loss of Rs. 193/12. The result was that so far as the transactions entered into by the complainant were concerned, there was a net profit of Rs. 1,331/4, This being so, the complainant would have been, but for the facts to be presently stated, entitled to the return of Rs. 2,625, the margin money, and to the sum of Rs. 1,331/4, the profit on the transactions. 2. It, however, appears that two brothers of the complainant and a sister of his had also put orders, for the purchase of certain commodities with Roshan Lal Gupta The allegation of the company is that all the orders placed by the complainant, his brothers and his sister constituted as one order and, therefore, the profit and loss resulting or accruing with respect to all these transactions must be taken into account. It appeals that there was a loss in the transactions entered into by the complainant, his brothers and sister, and on the accounts of all the transactions entered into by the, complainant, his brothers and his sister, being made up, only a sum of Rs. 538-12 was due to the complainant and his relations The company, therefore, sent Rs. 538-12 to the complainant and his relations. 3. 538-12 was due to the complainant and his relations The company, therefore, sent Rs. 538-12 to the complainant and his relations. 3. The contention of the complainant, on the other hand, is that his orders had no connection with the orders placed by his brothers and sister, and he is, therefore, entitled to the amount of Rs. 2,625 and to the profit of Rs. 1,331-4. 4. The controversy between the parties, therefore, resolves itself into this: Whether the various orders placed by the complainant and his brothers and sisters are to be treated as one order or are to be treated as separate ordeers? This question is essentially a question for the Civil Court to decide and cannot, in my judgment, form the subject of a criminial complaint. The dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and it is desirable that the Civil Court should adjudicate upon that dispute. 5. In this view of the matter I allow this application, quash the proceedings consequent on the complaint filed by the complainant and direct that the applicant be discharged.