The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entrustment of property, dishonest intentions, and failure to account for the entrusted property can support the allegations of criminal breach of trust.

1. FIR No.82/2011 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC on the complaint of Lt. Col. Surender Pal Singh Aurora. In the complaint against the petitioner Vijay Dixit, Kalpana Dixit promoters of M/s. Senior Mall regd. office at 1/1, Shanti Niketan, New Delhi and other unknown persons it was alleged that Vijay Dixit and Kalpana Dixit representing themselves to be the promoters of M/s. Senior Builders Limited offered lucrative schemes for the purpose of investment in their Shopping Mall namely Senior Mall, Sector-32, Noida, U.P. The complainant approached them at New Delhi where they projected the credibility of the company and assured that their company was in a sound economic condition and maintained a good reputation. They represented that the company had a collaboration agreement for developing a Multiplex-cum-Shopping complex on land bearing plot No. BW-55, Sector-32, City Centre, Noida, U.P. admeasuring 4332 sq. mtrs. allotted to M/s. MMT Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd. and construction of the Shopping Mall would be completed before March 31, 2016. Believing their representation, the complainant signed a Builder-Buyer Agreement on 3rd October, 2005 as per which he was allotted space No.F-11 on the first floor of Multiplex-cum-shopping complex admeasuring approximately 913.12 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.30 lakhs. The said Rs.30 lakhs was paid in installments to the accused persons.

2. Since despite assurance possession of the space allotted was not given, the complainant repeatedly visited when one more person K.K. Shukla was present in office who assured all the investors that the construction of the Mall would be completed soon. A letter dated 31st October, 2008 was sent to the complainant stating that the Mall was ready for fit outs and the complainant should take possession of his shop within 10 days. The complainant personally visited the site to inspect the shopping Mall and found that the Senior Mall was not ready for possession and lot of finishing work was yet to be completed. Allegation of the complainant is that even on the date of filing of the complaint, the Mall was not ready for occupation. During this period he met number of investors who had all also paid the amount and had not been handed over possession of the allotted space.

3. Later it was revealed that on 12th July, 2005 the Noida Authority had already cancelled the allotment of M/s. MMT Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd. for non-payment of almost 4 crores and a case in this regard was pending in the High Court of Allahabad. Despite the fact that the allotment in favour of M/s. MMT Amusement Park had been cancelled, the accused continued to take money from the investors and executed agreement of sale. Later the complainant also got to know that a sale notice dated 21st September, 2010 in the newspapers had been issued by United Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi wherein it was mentioned that on account of non-payment of loan by the accused company, the property named Senior Mall had been put to public auction. After investigation a charge-sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC.

4. Vide the order dated 3rd January, 2015 learned CMM ordered directing framing of charge against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 120B IPC. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned ASJ which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 16th April, 2015. Hence the present petition.

5. When this petition came up for hearing on 26th October, 2016, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was not pressing the petition to the extent of challenge to the order directing framing of charge for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC but only to the extent of charge for offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. Contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the only allegations against the petitioner are for o