Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Opposite Party no.2 and the State. 2. This application by the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 4.8.99 passed by Sri Baijnath, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Danapur in G.R.Case No. 621/99 (Tr.No.899/99) arising out of Bikram P.S.Case No. 85/99 dated 29.5.99 under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (In short, i.PC.) wereby and whereunder he has dismissed the application filed on behalf of petitioner to discharge him from the case. 3. The brief facts giving rise to this application is that Surendra Singh (Opposite Party No.2) filed an F.I.R. (An-nexure-1) stating therein that he had sold, lis HMT Tractor bearing registration no. BR-IA-2089 along with Trailor BR-IA-2090 in the year 1993 to petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,27,000/- and the petitioner had promised to make payment within an year on monthly instalment @ Rs. 10,000/- with interest. After the purchase petitioner paid only four instalments all amounting to Rs. 40,000/- and has not paid the balance amount in spite of demand by the opposite party no. 2. In the F.I.R. it was further stated that opposite party no.2, the informant wanted to take back his Tractor, Trailor along with accessories and a request was made for seizing the Tractor. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet under section 406 I.P.C. against the petitioner and, accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case is now pending for trial and disposal. According to the petitioner no offence under I.P.C. is made out and the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. simply makes out a case of civil nature only. Relying upon a decision of a Single Judge of this Court reported in 2000(1) B.L.J. 245 the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner has submitted that on the basis of statement made in the F.I.R. no criminal liability can be put on the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer of petitioner has submitted that the defence of petitioner cannot be considered at this stage and he has relied upon a decision reported in 1999 Cri. L.J. 5011. 6. I find no substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer of petitioner has submitted that the defence of petitioner cannot be considered at this stage and he has relied upon a decision reported in 1999 Cri. L.J. 5011. 6. I find no substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. The decision relied upon by him is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in that case the court below had not only gone into a detailed discussion about the defence of the petitioner but recorded a conclusive finding that the petitioner was not guilty of offences as alleged. It is not a case of in which defence of petitioner has been considered because he has not put forward any defence. If the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. are taken as they stand even then only this much has been alleged against the petitioner that after purchasing the Tractor from opposite party no.2 he has made a part payment and balance amount is due against him. This fact does not attract any criminal offence. The question of offence under section 406 I.P.C. also does not arise because admittedly there was no entrustment of the Tractor to the petitioner and admittedly it was a sale. The allegation in the F.I.R. at best makes out a case of civil dispute. 7. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 4.8.99 passed by the court below as well as prosecution of petitioner in G.R.Case No.621/99 (Tr.No.899/99) arising out of Bikram P.S.Case No.85/99 dated 29.5.99 under section 406 I.P.C. is hereby quashed.