C.A. Rahim, J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to quash criminal proceedings against the applicant started on the basis of complaint under Sections 409/427 Indian Penal Code on 24.2.1982 and thereby a Criminal Case No. 546/9 of 1982 was registered. The case of the complainant is that in 1973 the petitioners detained 12 oxygen cylinders and 11 D.A. gas cylinders and thereafter started their business with some other parties along with those cylinders. On demand the petitioners did not return the said cylinders to the representative of the complainant. On 18.10.1980 the complainant sent a registered letter demanding cylinders followed by another notice on 19.1.1982 the complainant lodged a report to the police station but the police refused to record or to register any case. Thereafter a complaint case was started and the complainant was examined under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code along with one witness under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code and on the basis of the evidence of this witness the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad issued process against the petitioners under Section 409 Indian Penal Code on 15.3.1982. The grievance of the petitioner is that no criminal offence has been disclosed, rather it is civil litigation for the breach of the agreement executed in between the parties in 1966. It has been stated that the case filed at such belated stage and the order of the learned Magistrate summoning the petitioners is cryptic without any reason. Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has submitted that the case is not barred by limitation. There is no bar in taking cognizance even if the petition-complaint is filed at the belated stage. It has been admitted by the petitioners that the complainant lodged a report to the police prior to the filing of the complaint case and for that reason it might be that the complainant waited for some time for the action to be taken by the police. Opposing the other points the learned A.G.A. has submitted that when the cylinders have not been returned to the complainant which are admittedly the property of the complainant criminal court has jurisdiction to entertain the application. After going through the materials on record I do not find anything to the contrary of the submission of the learned A.G.A. As regards the last point it appears from the certified copy of the order sheet that it does not bear any discussion of the evidence recorded by the learned Magistrate. There is also no material appearing in the order sheet whether the learned Magistrate was satisfied that prima facie case was made out against the accused persons. Annexure-2 is statement of the complainant recorded under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code. Annexure-3 is the statement of Rajendra Kumar Bansal. From the statement of these two witnesses it appears that sufficient materials have been disclosed to proceed with and I find no illegality in issuing process against the accused persons though the order is not a reasoned order. But I do not find that any prejudice has been accused to the accused-petitioners thereby. By means of interim order proceedings has been stayed for the last 13 years. I do not find any reason to set aside the said order on this technical ground alone when there is prima facie case against the accused persons. Considering the circumstances I do not find any merit in this application and hence it is dismissed. Application Dismissed.;