1. - By way of filing the present revision petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 12.4.2004 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Fist Class, No.3 in FIR No.14/2003, Police Station, Udaimandir whereby the protest petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. Brief facts inter alia narrated in the revision petition are that the petitioner No.1 filed a written FIR before Police Station Udai Mandiar, Jodhpur on 9.1.2003 wherein it was alleged that an ambassador car No. RJ-19-T-1626 was purchased by the petitioner No.2 - wife of petitioner No.1. On 8.1.2003 at about 8 a.m., when his Driver Moolshanker, who was driving the car along with his two children, who were sitting in the car, were passing through Darpan Cinema, one Altaf with two-three other persons, residents of Jodhpur, asked the driver to stop the car and when he stopped the car, they forcibly pulled out the driver and his two children from the car and took away the car without giving any information with regard to reasons for taking away the car in their possession.

3. The Driver of the Car - Moolshanker informed this incident to the petitioner No.1 on telephone. Upon this information, the petitioner No.1 along with his driver went to the Police Station Udai Mandir and registered the said FIR against the non-petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and three other persons. Thereafter regular investigation was conducted. It was also alleged in the FIR that when they reached the Police Station, the Incharge of the Police Station gave a telephonic message to Altaf because Altaf gave his telephone number to the driver when vehicle was taken over in possession by him. After receiving telephonic message from Police Station, said Altaf reached Police Station Udai Mandir, Jodhpur and assured the petitioner No.1 that he will return the vehicle on 9.1.2003 but the said vehicle was not returned and he refused to return the vehicle. Thereafter, the Police registered the case under Section 379 I.P.C.

4. After usual investigation, the Police filed final report before the learned Magistrate and after receiving notice with regard to filing final report by the Police, the petitioners filed protest petition for taking cognizance against the non-petitioners because they forcibly and illegally took the possession of the vehicle from the driver of the petitioners. Upon the protest petition, the statements were recorded but at last, learned Magistrate rejected the protest petition while observing that the petitioner No.1 - Shiv Shanker Soni took a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from Birla Global Asset Finance Com. Ltd., Jodhpur and he has executed agreement to repay the loan amount with interest but he failed to deposit the installments as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Thereafter, the possession of the vehicle was taken by the Finance Company through Altaf and other persons. It is also observed in the impugned order that before taking into possession of the vehicle, said Altaf has informed the Police also that in pursuance of nonpayment of installments of loan, the possession of the vehicle was taken as per the terms and conditions of the agreements executed by the petitioner. It is also observed in the order that complainant only wants to make out his case for taking the said vehicle in his possession by the Police ultimately being the registered owner of the vehicle, he will get the possession of the vehicle while filing an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and his intention is only to get the possession of the vehicle without making any payment of loan. Therefore, the reasons for filing FIR is totally based on malice intention. It is also observed that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, there is right left with the non-petitioners to take possession of the vehicle as per the terms and conditions. Hence there is no question of taking any cognizance for the alleged offence. It is observed in th