JUDGMENT 1. - The three accused petitioners have filed this revision against the order of the Earned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, Occasion dated 2-12-83 hereby cognizance not been taken against the petitioners for offence u/s 379 IPC. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that on 4.6-83 Laxman Singh filed a report before the S.P., Jodhpur, alleging that in his absence from his house at Mathania on 1-6-83, the accused persons took away his trolly No. RRQ 4160 despite the protests of his wife and children by trocheeing it with their tractor. It was further stated that when he went back to his village on 2.6-83, his wife informed him of this incident. On this the police registered a case u/s 379 IPC and started investigations. As a result of the investigations, the police filed a final report as in its opinion, no case of theft was made out and as a matter of fact, the said trolly had been sold out to the accused Premsukh by the complainant Laxman Singh and that there was some dispute about the part payment. This final report was contested by the complainant who had already filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate on 13-7-83. The learned Magistrate, however, accepted the final report on 2-9-83 but proceeded with the complaint. The complainant was examined u/s 200 and a number of his witnesses were examined u/s 202 Cr. PC. By his order dated 2-12-83 the learned Magistrate, observing that from the evidence of the complainant & his witnesses a prima facie case u/s 379 IPC was made out against the accused persons took cognizance of that offence. 3. I have heard the learned council for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. PC. By his order dated 2-12-83 the learned Magistrate, observing that from the evidence of the complainant & his witnesses a prima facie case u/s 379 IPC was made out against the accused persons took cognizance of that offence. 3. I have heard the learned council for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute was purely of a civil nature as had been found by the police after investigations that there was inordinate delay in filing the FIR because although the first informant Laxman Singh admitted that he had reached his village on 2.6-83 and was informed by his wife about this incident, the report was lodged as late as on 4.6-83 and the complaint was thereafter lodged on 13-7-83 that the learned Magistrate has not at all taken into consideration the material which had been placed before him by the police along with the final report but has simply cryptically referred to the evidence led in the complaint and in these circumstances the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence u/s 379 IPC against the petitioners cannot be maintained. He supported his contentions by referring to Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo, AIR 1979 SC 850 and Suraj Prakash & another v. Shiv Shanker & Anr., 1980 Cr. LR (Raj.) 676 . On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has supported the order of the learned Magistrate and has urged that the investigations made by the police were wholly inadequate and one sided. There was material before the learned Magistrate to satisfy him to proceed with the case and, therefore, the order taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners was just and proper. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. It may at once be stated that in the circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. It may at once be stated that in the circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate. It is true that the learned Magistrate had first accepted the final report on 2-9.83 and later on the complaint had taken cognizance of the offence u/s 379 IPC against the accused persons without referring to the fact that he had already accepted the final report and without giving reasons why he felt inclined to take cognizance of the offence u/s 379 IPC despite the acceptance of the final report but it cannot be doubted that there was some material before the learned Magistrate in the shape of the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses who were examined u/ss 200 and 202 Cr. PC which may have led him to the satisfaction that the matter requires to be proceeded with and it will not be proper for me to refer to the evidence to that effect at this stage lest it should prejudice the case of any of the parties. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute was purely of a civil nature also, in my opinion, cannot be accepted at this stage and Trilok Singh's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel appears to be distinguishable on the ground that matter related to a case where the truck was alleged to have been taken away in pursuance of a 'seizure' clause in an hire purchase agreement which is not the case here. Mere delay in filing FIR cannot bar the court from taking cognizance. 7. So far as Suraj Prakash's case (supra) is concerned, that was a case where a final report was accepted in the absence of any complaint and, therefore, that case also is distinguishable. 8. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the revision is without substance and is, therefore, rejected.Revision rejected. *******