JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.K. Roopanwal, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.2.2007 passed by the A.C.J.M. Court No. 3, Pilibhit, and the order dated 23.4.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pillibhit. Vide order dated 21.2.2007 the A.C.J.M. has rejected the application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner and vide order dated 23.4.2007 the revision filed by the revisionist was dismissed. 2. It appears from the record that an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner stating therein that he purchased a Tractor on loan from the State Bank of India, Branch Pipariya Agaroo, District Pilibhit. He could not repay the loan on time. Instead of taking suitable legal action for the realisation of loan the officials of the Bank came at his house and forcibly took away the Tractor. They not only took away the Tractor but also abused and used derogatory language against the family members of the petitioner. This application was rejected by the A.C.J.M. on the ground that the petitioner did not file any document concerning the loan nor he filed the mortgage deed. It was also rejected as no injury report was filed by the petitioner. The grounds for rejection mentioned by the A.C.J.M. were endorsed by the Sessions Judge, and the revision was dismissed. Hence this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. 4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at the time of taking decision on an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. the only requirement was the consideration of facts mentioned in the application and if the facts make out a cognizable offence then no option is left with the Magistrate but to order for registration and investigation of the case. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the A.C.J.M. analysed the facts instead of treating them to be true on their face value, hence the order is improper and is liable to be set aside. In the same way the order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside. 5. A look at the orders passed by both the Courts below would show that the Tractor was in the possession of the petitioner, though it was taken on loan. In the same way the order passed by the revisional Court deserves to be set aside. 5. A look at the orders passed by both the Courts below would show that the Tractor was in the possession of the petitioner, though it was taken on loan. If the loan was not paid proper course should have been adopted by the authorities of the Bank instead of snatching the Tractor by force depriving the custody holder from its benefit. In this way, in my opinion, a cognizable offence was committed and the Court below, should have ordered for the registration and investigation of the case. By not doing the same an improper order has been passed by the A.C.J.M. and by endorsing the same view the revisional Court also passed an improper order. 6. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders dated 21.2.2007 and 23.4.2007 are hereby set aside. The matter is sent back to the trial Court for passing a fresh order in the light of the discussion made above. ————