JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:

1. The revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceedings in Complaint Case being no. C-401/19 under Sections 120B/403/420/506/34 of I.P.C pending before the Learned 1st Additional Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, North 24 Parganas.

2. The prosecution case against the petitioners in a gist is that:-

One Nripen Sarkar filed a petition of Complaint before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, stating inter alia that:-

“The petitioner No.1 is the brother-in-law of the Complainant and with the instigation of other petitioners, the private opposite party no. 2 issued a Cheque on Axis Bank being Cheque No. 92069 on 05.05.2015 and thereafter the petitioner No. 1 deposited the said Cheque to his account on 07.05.2015 of rupees 80,000/- for encashment and subsequently the petitioner no. 1 withdraw the said amount with a condition that he will purchase a plot of land in the name of the wife of the opposite party no.2 but unfortunately the petitioner No.1 refused to return the said amount that is rupees 80,000/- to the opposite party no.2 on 02.02.2019 and when the opposite party no.2 asked the petitioner no.1 to return the said amount at that time the petitioner no.1 used some filthy and defamatory languages towards the opposite party no.2 and all the petitioners with some mala fide intention misappropriated the entire amount. It is also mentioned that similar case is pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat being Barasat P.S. Case No. 684/17 dated 22.07.2017 against some of the petitioners and with the aforesaid allegation the instant case has been started.”

3. The petitioners’ state that the entire matter is a family dispute between the parties and the same is also Civil in nature and there is no criminal liabilities throughout the proceeding and thus the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed.

4. The following rulings have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners:-

1) Wyeth Limited & Ors. vs State of Bihar & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 1224 of 2022, (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10730 of 2018), decided on August 11, 2022.

2) Sijo John vs State of Kerala, 2018 SCC ONLINE KER 3450, decided on August 14, 2018.

3) Gopal Singh & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Anr., in S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 658/2015, decided on 19.07.2017.

5. In the petition of Complaint it is stated as follows:-

i. The opposite party no.2/Complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 80,000/- in favour of the petitioner no.1, who encashed the same.

ii. The said amount had been paid to the petitioner no. 1 to purchase a plot of land in the name of the Complainant’s wife which the petitioner no.1 did not do, nor did he return the said amount in spite of repeated requests.

iii. On being asked to return the amount, the petitioner no.1 allegedly used filthy and demantory language towards the complainant/opposite party no.2.

iv. It is thus stated that the petitioners with some mala fide intention misappropriated the entire amount.

v. Hence the case was registered.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegations made by the Complainant are true, the dispute is civil in nature and that there are no ingredients in the present case to make out a prima facie case in respect of the offences alleged against the petitioners.

7. The present proceedings have been initiated for offence punishable under Sections 120B/403/420/506/34 of IPC.

8. Section 403 of IPC, lays down:-

“403. Dishonest misappropriation of property.—Whoever dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Ingredients of offence.- The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 403 are as follows:-

(1) The property belongs to a person other than the accused,

(2) The accused appropriated the said property or converted it to his own use, and

(