JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of the order dated 26.05.2006 passed by the S.D.J.M., Godda in P.C.R. No. 627 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 1169 of 2006 by an appropriate writ/order/directions. 2. The brief fact of the case giving rise to the writ petition was that the Respondent No. 2 (Raj Kishore Jha) had presented a complaint vide P.C.R. No. 474/99 in the Court of C.J.M., Godda against both the petitioners Ramesh Kumar Bajaj @ Ramesh Bajaj & Raman Kumar Sah @ Raman Kumar stating inter alia that he was the owner of Mahindra Commander Jeep No. BR 12-4494 having all relevant documents of the said jeep in his name. On 12.05.1999 the petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Kumar Bajaj @ Ramesh Bajaj took the jeep of the complainant on hire from the complainant at the rate of Rs. 400/- per day. It was alleged that whenever the complainant Respondent No. 2 (Raj Kishore Jha) used to demand the freight of his jeep that was under use and possession of the petitioner No. 1 (Ramesh Kumar Bajaj @ Ramesh Bajaj) on hire, the latter rest assured that he would make payment sooner and asked that he needed the vehicle for some more time. On 02.08.1999 when the complainant reiterated his demand, it ignited the petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Kumar Bajaj and other accused persons present there. The petitioner Ramesh Kumar Bajaj declined having ever taken any vehicle from the complainant and in the same transaction the petitioner No. 2 Raman Kumar Sah threatened him in abusive language that he would be eliminated in case he would come to Godda. It was alleged that their such rude behaviour adversely affected the prestige of the complainant. Yet, the jeep in question was lying at the house of the Petitioner No. 2 (Raman Kumar Sah @ Raman Kumar) which could be procured and that both the petitioners intentionally usurped his jeep for their personal gains and thereby caused criminal breach of trust. However, the petitioners expressed to return his jeep on payment of Rs. 20,000/- as the extortion amount and that such act of petitioners constituted an offence under Sections 406/506 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the petitioners expressed to return his jeep on payment of Rs. 20,000/- as the extortion amount and that such act of petitioners constituted an offence under Sections 406/506 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed on 03.08.1999 which was sent to Godda Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the C.J.M., Godda, giving rise to Godda P.S. Case No. 257 of 1999, registered on 07.08.99 against the petitioners for the alleged offence under Sections 406/384/506 I.P.C. 3. The learned Counsel explained that prior to such complaint, an informatory petition was filed by the Petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Kumar Bajaj on 26.07.99 before the Officer-in-Charge of Godda Police Station complaining therein that he was having a diesel vehicle to which he had put it for repair in the garage of the Respondent No. 2 Raj Kishore Jha who presented the estimate of Rs. 25,000/- being the cost of repair. On demand the Petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Kumar Bajaj made an advance of a sum of Rs. 20,001/- to the complainant O.P. No. 2 on 18.03.1999 and the complainant Respondent No. 2 assured in presence of his own relations that he would deliver the diesel vehicle within 21 days after its repair. When the vehicle could not be delivered to the petitioner within time frame in spite of reminder, the complainant O.P. No. 2 Raj Kishore Jha came to his shop with one Shankar Thakur and Ajay Pradhan and expressed his inability to deliver his vehicle as the same could not be repaired in time as such the petitioner demanded his money back which was advanced to him. The Respondent No. 2 Raj Kishore Jha then asked him to takeaway his diesel jeep No. BR 12-4494 with all relevant documents and accordingly he transferred the custody of his diesel jeep to the Petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Kumar Bajaj. The petitioner alleged in his informatory petition that on 25.07.1999 Raj Kishore Jha suddenly came to his residence and asked him to deliver his diesel jeep and otherwise threatened to take away his jeep forcibly. Such petition prompted the Godda Police to make entry in the Station diary of the Police Station (Annexure-1). 4. The petitioner alleged in his informatory petition that on 25.07.1999 Raj Kishore Jha suddenly came to his residence and asked him to deliver his diesel jeep and otherwise threatened to take away his jeep forcibly. Such petition prompted the Godda Police to make entry in the Station diary of the Police Station (Annexure-1). 4. The petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Kumar Bajaj preferred a complaint vide P.C.R. No. 486/1999 against Respondent No. 2 (Raj Kishore Jha) with the aforesaid allegations and his complaint was also sent to the Godda Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. giving rise to Godda PS. Case No. 258 of 1999 for the alleged offence under Sections 406/407/420 & 120B I.P.C. against Respondent No. 2 Raj Kishore Jha. 5. Learned Counsel attracted the attention by submitting that in the case which was brought about by the Petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Kumar Bajaj vide Godda P.S. Case No. 258 of 1999 the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the Respondent Raj Kishore Jha under Section 173 Cr.P.C. whereas the Investigating Officer in counter case vide Godda P.S. Case No. 257 of 1999 instituted on the instance of the Respondent No. 2 ( Raj Kishore Jha) submitted final form exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioners Ramesh Kumar Bajaj @ Ramesh Bajaj & Raman Kumar Sah @ Raman Kumar besides making prayer for criminal prosecution for the offence under Sections 182/211 I.P.C. (Annexure-4) against the complainant Respondent No. 2. 6. However, against the final form submitted by the Investigating Officer exonerating the criminal liability of the petitioners herein, the Respondent No. 2 Raj Kishore Jha filed a Protest-cum-Complaint Petition in the Court of C.J.M., Godda which was after admission transferred to the Court of Md. Abdul Naseer, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Enquiring Court after recording the statements of three witnesses and having gone through the averments made in the complaint petition found no prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners, hence dismissed the Complaint-cum-Protest Petition. 7. Abdul Naseer, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Enquiring Court after recording the statements of three witnesses and having gone through the averments made in the complaint petition found no prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners, hence dismissed the Complaint-cum-Protest Petition. 7. The Respondent No. 2 Raj Kishore Jha impugned the said order dated 04.06.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class by preferring a Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2003 and the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda by his order dated 16.08.2005 dismissed the revision with the following observation, From perusal of the impugned order it is also manifest that the court below has himself admitted that there is a dispute regarding the financial matter which finds support from the averments and the statements of the witnesses made In this case that the revisionist entrusted his Commander Jeep for hire at the rate of 400/- per day to the accused, who on demand did not pay the same. I am of the view that there is sufficient material available on the record which clearly suggest that there is a good prima facie case made out against the accused person for the offence punishable under Sections 406 & 506 of I.P.C. Hence, they should be prosecuted there under. Therefore, the order dismissing the complaint passed by the learned Magistrate suffers material irregularity and illegalities which is liable to be set aside. 8. The case was remitted back which was received in the Court of S.D.J.M. and on the basis of the findings of the Revisional Court the S.D.J.M., Godda observed, In the light of above observation there is no option but to pass an order accordingly. Therefore, a prima facie case is made u/s 406 & 506 of Indian Penal Code against two named accused persons in the complaint petition. Complainant is directed to file requisite and thereafter office is directed to issue summons to the witnesses. 9. The learned Counsel urged that in the said Criminal Revision the petitioners were neither impleaded though they were the necessary party nor any notice was sent to them to put their stand if they so liked and therefore, the order that was passed in the Criminal Revision by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was in violation of natural justice and the State-Opposite Party did not place the cause of the petitioners. Sessions Judge was in violation of natural justice and the State-Opposite Party did not place the cause of the petitioners. The fact was ignored that the police after investigation had found the case of Respondent No. 2 false as against the petitioners herein and recommended for the criminal prosecution of the Complainant-Respondent No. 2 under Sections 182/211 I.P.C. which is initiated and is under progress. 10. Mr. Shamim Akhtar, S.C.-II submitted that the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda (F.T.C.-III) while disposing of the Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2003/2 of 2005 was conscious about the interest of the petitioners and only after critical analysis, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Godda and upon having been satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners under Sections 406/506 I.P.C. observed that the order of Judicial Magistrate suffered from material irregularity and illegality which could not sustain and accordingly the case was remitted back to the learned Judicial Magistrate. As the S.D.J.M., Godda came in the seisin of the said record, complied the direction of the Revisional Court by the order impugned which is, according to the learned Standing Counsel-II was legal which did not call for interference. 11. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 in spite of call. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioners were not heard by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Revision No. 71 of 2003/2 of 2005 and even no notice was sent to them which was preferred by the Respondent No. 2 against the order passed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, dismissing his complaint. 13. It is well settled that revisional interference may be justified where: (i) the decision is grossly erroneous. (ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law. (iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence. (iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered and (v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 14. 13. It is well settled that revisional interference may be justified where: (i) the decision is grossly erroneous. (ii) there is no compliance with the provisions of law. (iii) the finding of fact affecting the decision is not based on evidence. (iv) material evidence of the parties is not considered and (v) judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. 14. I find that the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Godda under Section 203 dismissing the complaint of the Respondent No. 2 was tested by the Revisional Court in the above frame work and the Court having been satisfied, found that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioners under Sections 406 and 506 Indian Penal Code so as to proceed against him and accordingly direction was made on the basis of which order was passed against the petitioners under Section 204 Code of Criminal Procedure by the S.D.J.M., Godda which is impugned. I have carefully gone through both the orders passed by the 6th Addl. Sessions Judge, Godda in Criminal Revision and the order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has carefully examined the legality of the impugned order passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. and set aside the said order by his reasoned order and I find that since the Revisional Court has examined the said order in the frame work of settled proposition of law and has also looked into the interest of the petitioners herein, I observe that they have not been denied natural justice. 15. The learned Counsel failed to produce cogent reason to call for interference, hence there being no merit this writ petition is dismissed. 16. Yet, I clarify that the prima facie finding of the Revisional Court and the order passed by the S.D.J.M., Godda under Section 204 Cr.P.C. in P.C.R. No. 627 of 2002 corresponding to T.R. No. 1169 of 2006 would not affect the merit of the criminal prosecution against the Respondent No. 2 Raj Kishore Jha under Sections 182/211 Indian Penal Code. Petition dismissed.