JUDGMENT : K.B. Panda, J. - This revision is directed against an order passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack, in G.R. Case No. 1445 of 1980 between the State and Mahendra Parida u/s 379, Indian Penal Code. The impugned order dated 12-8-1980 runs as follows: Complt, and accused file hazira. Heard the advocates from both sides, From the cash memo seized during investigation it appears that accused has purchased the seized cycle-rickshaw, Inform the P.O. to return the seized cycle-rickshaw to the accused who is directed to produce the same whenever directed. Put up on 12.9-1980 awaiting F.F. Accused as before. Sd/- Illegible. S.D.J.M. Later-A petition is filed on behalf of the informant praying for 15 days tide to bring stay order. Heard, Petition is allowed. Time is allowed till 27-8-1980 to bring stay order. Operation of the order be stayed tilt 27-8-1980. Sd/. Illegible, S.D.J.M. 2. The facts leading to the above criminal case run thus: One Pravat Kumar Chatterjee, the Petitioner herein filed a written complaint dated 3.5.1980 before the officer-in-charge of Mangalabag Police Station stating that his cycle-rickshaw bearing No. C.M. 2067 which had been sold to him by the opposite party (Mahendra Parida) had been taken away by the said Mahendra Parida, Opposite party herein, while it was near the buxibazar market. Accordingly, a case u/s 379, Indian Penal Code was registered for theft of the cycle-rickshaw bearing No. C.M. 2067 by the accused Mahendra Parida who is said to be an ex-Assistant of the Petitioner. On 10.5.1980 the accused Mahendra Parida filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack stating that this was a false case foisted against him; that the cycle-rickshaw belonged to him and he had retained the cash memo relating to the rickshaw in question; that the I.O. enquired and found that the seized rickshaw number belonged to one Era Shankar Rao of Kutakhai Gali; that he purchased the cycle-rickshaw from the Shah Cycle Store, Tinkonia Bagicha, in his own name and the two seized cash memo would prove how he was the owner of the rickshaws in question. He was serving under the Petitioner and the Petitioner did not pay his salary when demanded. So this case has been filed with a purpose to harass him and grab the rickshaw illegally. He was serving under the Petitioner and the Petitioner did not pay his salary when demanded. So this case has been filed with a purpose to harass him and grab the rickshaw illegally. He further stated in the petition that the cycle-rickshaw was lying in the P.S. campus and since it would get damaged, it might be released in his favour after enquiry. From the side of the accused a cash memo relating to' the seized rickshaw is filed and it is asserted that the No. 2067 is of a different cycle rickshaw does not appertain to the rickshaw in question. From the side of the complainant a receipt has been filed indicating that the accused had sold the cycle rickshaw No. C.M. 2067 to Sri Pravat Kumar Chatterjee of Makarba Sahi for a sum of Rs. 1200/- on 18-2-1980. The accused's case is that it has been obtained under coercion. 3. The matter is now subjudice and, as such, I do not wish to make any observation which would prejudice either party. Suffice it to say, the facts seem to be intriguing and smak of a civil dispute. The learned lower Court has passed an interim order during the pendency of the case after hearing the parties. I do not think that to be a volnerable order which calls for interference. Accordingly the revision is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed