Judgment J. R. CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition arises under sections 482/397 Cr. P. C. against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gulabpura by which he has taken cognizance against the accused under s. 406 I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the decision of this petition briefly stated are: that a complaint was filed before the S. H. O. Badnore by one Rahimudeen that he has given his tractor on rent to the accused-petitioner Rs. 100/- per day with this condition that the accused-petitioner will bear the expenses of the driver, diesel and repairs etc. , and he will pay him Rs. 100/- but the petitioner has not paid him that amount and when the arrears of the rent were demanded, the petitioner has taken the plea that he has already purchased the tractor but no written document was executed between the parties to evidence the sale and, therefore, the accused has fralldulently retained the possession of the tractor, trolly, and cultivator etc. After investigation, the investigating officer came to the conclusion that actually, the tractor has been sold to Naurat Mal for a sum of Rs. 26, and on different dates, he has paid Rs. 10,000/- to the owner and he has also deposited Rs. 2,000/- in the Bank which was taken by the complainant as Loan from the Bank on this tractor and even the remaining instalments were also to paid by the petitioner. The investigating officer has come to he conclusion that because the document of higher purchase was not got written, the complainant malafidely demanded the possession of the tractor back from the petitioner and, therefore, no case is made out against the petitioner. The learned Magistrate took the view that although the sale has been executed but no receipt to the payment of, Rs. 10,000/- has been obtained and, therefore, as the document of the tractor exits in favour of the complaint, prima facie a case under s. 406 I. P. C. is made out against the accused-petitioner. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. T. S. Champawat, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, Mr. B. C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the complainant. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. T. S. Champawat, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, Mr. B. C. Bhansali, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. M. M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the complainant. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. ( 4 ) HAVING gone through the record of the case and the contents of the FIR. I am convinced that it is actually a case of higher purchase in which the tractor has been agreed to be sold in the sum of Rs. 26,000/- because had it not been done, where it was the necessity of the petitioner to have paid Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant on different dates and further where was the necessity for the petitioner to have deposited Rs. 2,000/- in the Bank in lieu of the instalment that was due from the complainant to the Bank on account of the loan taken on this tractor. The investigating officer has also observed that even the subsequent instalments were to be paid by the petitioner on behalf of the complainant, which clearly shows that it was a case of higher purchase, Simply because the document has not been written it does not mean that it will cease to be a transaction of that type. Actually, it is a dispute of civil nature where probably some amount has not been paid and so, the help of the police has been sought to recover back the possession of that tractor and its accessories. That of course cannot be termed to be an appropriate course. Where a civil dispute is given a criminal tinge. If some agreement of sale has been entered into between the parties even orally and some amount has remained due, the appropriate course for the complainant was to approach a competent Civil Court and not to avail the help of the criminal court or in investigating agency to recover back the possession of the tractor and its accessories. Taking an over all view of the entire matter, I am convinced that in this case, cognizance under section 4061. P6 should not have been taken by the learned lower court. ( 5 ) IN the result, I accept this petition and quash the order dated 30-1-1980 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura whereby it has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 4061. P6 should not have been taken by the learned lower court. ( 5 ) IN the result, I accept this petition and quash the order dated 30-1-1980 passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura whereby it has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 4061. P. C. Actually, it is a case of civil nature and the parties are left to get their rights decided by a competent civil court. Petition dismisse