Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. This is an application u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the second part of the order dated 13-2-1996 passed by Sri D.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj in G.R. Case No. 1424/94 whereby and where under it was ordered by the learned Judicial Magistrate on perusal of the record that there are sufficient material for framing of the charges under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and charges were accordingly framed as against the petitioner. 2. The fact, in short, for the purpose of this application is that one Iqbal Hussain on behalf of J.K. Auto Financier, Ranchi, lodged an FIR on 15-11-1994 before the Daltonganj police alleging therein that the petitioner after obtaining loan and finance from the financier complainant purchased a tractor bearing No. BR-14P-0277 in June 1992, but he defaulted in payment of the installment and so he transferred the tractor to the Financier Co. but on some pretext or the other, he took the tractor from the possession of Financier so this case was initiated. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet and vide impugned order charges were framed against the petitioner by the trial court. 3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that actually the petitioner has paid the entire installments and on false pretext the Financier obtained, some signature on blank paper and on that basis some documents were manufactured and this false case was instituted. It may be said that it is the petitioners defence to be agitated before the trial court at the appropriate stage and it is for the trial court to decide if at all the petitioner is defaulter or not and on the basis of some plain paper in which there was prior signature of the petitioner, some documents were manufactured by the Financier, but apparently from the F.I.R. a criminal case is made out. 4. It was further contended that the entire dispute is in civil nature and as such the criminal case is not maintainable and liabilities, if any, is civil and the case is maintainable before a Civil Court and the criminal case is misuse of the process of the court. 5. 4. It was further contended that the entire dispute is in civil nature and as such the criminal case is not maintainable and liabilities, if any, is civil and the case is maintainable before a Civil Court and the criminal case is misuse of the process of the court. 5. On the other hand, it was contended on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 that in the instant case the facts as mentioned in the F.I.R. clearly make out a criminal case and that there is also civil liability but the petitioner had full knowledge that he defaulted and transferred the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the Financier, still on false pretext took the tractor and in support of his contention relied upon a decision of our own High Court reported in Dhrubdeo Mishra V/s. State of Bihar & Anr.1 and also of the Allahabad High Court reported in Gurmej Singh V/s. State of U.P. & Ors.2. In Dhrubdeo Mishras case (supra) decided by a Bench of this Court on the basis of several authorities of the Supreme Court, it was held that the similar set of facts may subject a person to civil liability and also to a criminal prosecution and the only test is that if the material on record brings out that the person had got motive for committing the offence and he had got mens rea and had knowledge from the very beginning that his action is illegal and wrong, then the criminal case is maintainable. In that view of the matter, as the facts as stated above clearly indicate the criminal liability of the petitioner and as such the criminal case as instituted by the opposite party No. 2 is definitely maintainable. 6. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that for this very tractor which is the subject-matter of dispute here, a case was instituted before the Consumer Forum of Plamau at Daltonganj bearing Case No. 213/94 and the Forum decided the case in favour of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the Financier committed mischief and the petitioner is entitled to keep the tractor and also damage was awarded as against the Financier and. thus. The judgment the Consumer Forum is definitely binding and it cannot be questioned before any other court save and except before State Tribunal. thus. The judgment the Consumer Forum is definitely binding and it cannot be questioned before any other court save and except before State Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the criminal case is not maintainable. 7. No doubt there is a finding of the Consumer Forum in favour of the petitioner but the criminal case is definitely maintainable and this defence of the petitioner can be taken before the trial Court itself. Moreover, in view of the decision of the Consumer Forum, the tractor in question was released in favour of the petitioner by the C.J.M. Daltonganj. Against that, Criminal Revision No. 36/95 (R) was preferred by the Financier and vide judgment dated 23rd January. 1996 by a Bench of this Court the order of the C.J.M. was set aside and it was observed that the Consumer Forum should not have entertained the complaint of the petitioner because of his relationship with the President of the Forum, and the order of the Consumer Forum Daltonganj is tainted. So a Bench of this Court ordered that the order of the Consumer Forum will not be applicable in the instant criminal case regarding release of the vehicle in question. In that view of the matter on the score of the order of the Consumer Forum, the criminal prosecution is not liable to be quashed and it will proceed. 8. So, considering the entire submission of the learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case. I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this application and so it is dismissed and the trial in connection with G.R. Case No. 1424/94 shall proceed in accordance with law.