JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The order dated 20-2-1995 of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sambalpur passed in G.R. Case No. 1138 of 1994 by which he has taken cognizance of offence u/s 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I. P. C.') and issued summons to the petitioners for their appearance is the subject matter of challenge in this application made u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Syed Gulam Nabi filed an F I. R. on 23-9-1994 before Inspector in-charge, Town P. S., Sambalpur, alleging that he had, been plying the bus bearing Registration No. O. S. S. 2411 since 13 to 14 months on Tilia-Sambalpur route. On 19.9-1994 the bus was in the private bus stand, of Sambalpur. The petitioners without intimating him took the bus somewhere else. The police duly took up investigation and after its completion filed chargesheet against the petitioners u/s 379/34. I. P. C. on the basis of which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance as per the impugned order. 3. Shri Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the document dated 21-7-1993 submitted that an agreement of sale in respect of the bus was entered into between the petitioners and the complainant who paid Rs. 50,000/- as part payment and took delivery of possession of the vehicle with an understanding 'that the balance amount of Rs. 2.00.000/- would be paid by him on installments and as the instalment dues were not paid, the vehicle wars taken from has custody as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and, it being a dispute of civil nature, no offence u/s 379/34. I. P. C. was committed. In this connection, he placed reliance on judgments of this Court in Ashok Kumar Dubriwal v. Rashmi Ranjan Mahapatra. (1998) 15 O.G.R. 42,and B. Vertkrtta Ramana v. Bhadrayya, Vol. 33 (1991) O. J. D. 325 (Cri). 4. On perusal of the records it appears that in course of investigation the complainant was examined by the police. He besides supporting the F. I. R. story, further stated that he purchased the bus from the petitioners as per the agreement of sale dated 21-7-1993 and was plying the same in Tilia-Sambalpur route and was cleating the dues On instalment basis. He besides supporting the F. I. R. story, further stated that he purchased the bus from the petitioners as per the agreement of sale dated 21-7-1993 and was plying the same in Tilia-Sambalpur route and was cleating the dues On instalment basis. But the ownership of the vehicle had not been transferred in his favour as it stood recorded id the name of Bichhitter Singh. On the date of occurrence the petitioners took away the bus. One Zamil Khan). Who was a witness to the agreement of sale stated before police that the complainant purchased the bus from the petitioners on 21-7-1993 and paid Rs. 50,000/- and the balance amount was to be paid to them on monthly instalments at the ratf' of Rs. 8.100/-. Clause-5 of the agreement of sale provides that in case of any default being- made by the complainant in making payment of instalment dues, the petitioners would be entitled to take possession of the vehicle from him and in such event the amount already paid by the complainant to the petitioners shall stand forfeited. After the petitioners were arrested, in course of interrogation they stated that as the complainant failed to pay the amount in instalments they took the vehicle to force him to pay the balance instalment dues. On careful consideration.of the materials on record, as briefly indicated above. I am of the opinion that the petitioners removed the vehicle in assertion of their right to claim possession over it for failure to pay the instalment dues. The said claim of right was made in good faith. It is a bonafide dispute, of civil nature and it cannot be held that the petitioners removed the vehicle with any dishonest intention. On the facts and circumstances, such removal does not constitute theft. 5. For the aforesaid reason, the order taking cognizance u/s 379/34, I. P. C. is vitiated. 6. In the result, the impugned order dated 20-2-1995 is hereby quashed. The application is allowed. Application allowed. Final Result : Allowed