Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for non-petitioner No.2 and perused the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh dated 13th February, 1997. (2). In short the facts are as follows : A tractor was purchased by Dalla and Babulal jointly. Later on Babulal alone sold the tractor. The tractor passed from one hand to another and ultimately it was purchased by son of the petitioner No.1 Puran Prakash as alleged by the petitioners. Dalla who was not a party in the sale of tractor lodged the first information report on 1st December, 1994 alleging that the tractor trolly was lying outside his house and Shri Laxmi Lal removed tractor from his possession and committed a theft. That report was found to be false. Thereafter criminal complaint was filed under Section 408, 420 and 120 I.P.C. by Dalla against all the purchaser and Laxmi Lal on 1st December, 1994 and on the basis of that complaint the first information report No. 107/94 was registered and after investigation final report was submitted. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh on the basis of the final report took cognizance of the offence under Section 120-B, 420 and 408 I.P.C. vide his order dated 13th February, 1997 against Babulal, Ashok Kumar, Tilak Raj, Prakash Chand and Laxmi Narain. (3). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order this petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Illustration `C given below Section 403 I.P.C. shows that if a chattel is owned by two persons A and B, and if A sells that chattel and appropriates the whole proceeds of the sale for his own use, an offence of criminal mis-appropriation is committed. Prima facie sale of tractor by Babulal. Attracts illustration `C given below Section 403 I.P.C. Section 80 I.P.C. imposes a duty on every person who per- forms an act which is likely to attract any penalty or punishment prescribed by law of which is likely to attract any penalty or punishment prescribed by law or which is likely to cause harm to any person to act with due care and caution, even in those cases in which there is no intention or knowledge. In the case of sale and purchase of motor vehicle a purchaser can, by taking proper care and caution within the mea- ning of Section 80 I.P.C. demand from the seller relevant documents of the vehicle in order to ascertain whether the seller is legally competent to sell the vehicle in accordance with law. One who in spite of ascertaining the correct facts purchases motor vehicle from persons who are not legally competent to sell them to the extent and in the manner in exercise of the right which they claim, can be said to be pur- chasing the motor vehicle with full knowledge of the relevant facts. (4). In view of above reasons it does not appear to be a fit case in which impugned order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should be quashed and set aside under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (5). The petitioners against whom process has been ordered to be issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 204 Cr.P.C. have a right to make such representations as they may be advised to make before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate against taking cognizance of the offence as well as against the order issuing the process against them. It is expected that if any application is submitted by the petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate the same shall be disposed of on merits. (6). The petition is disposed of accordingly, at the admission stage.