JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro in connection with C.P. Case No.646 of 2021 whereby and where under the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 506, 504, 323, 341, 417, 427 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is at the stage of appearance and charge has not yet been framed by the trial court.

4. The brief fact of the case is that ten years prior to recording of the statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant on 04.10.2021, in the year 2010, the petitioners paid Rs.3,00,000/-. The petitioners have further got the work started on the land. When the complainant asked for paying the remaining money, the petitioners told him to go anywhere he wishes and nothing will happen. It is alleged that on 05.07.2021, the accused persons came to the house of the complainant, abused him and told him that he has to give the land to the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro basing on the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation of the complainant and the statement of the enquiry witnesses, found prima facie case in respect of the offences as already indicated above.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners of dishonest misappropriation of the property nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of any criminal intimidation or intentional insult to the complainant. Further, there is no allegation against the petitioners of causing hurt or wrongfully restraining nor is there any allegation against the petitioners of cheating the complainant or anyone else. Further, there is no allegation of commission of any mischief by either of the petitioners. It is next submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety, still none of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is also submitted that it is the admitted case of the complainant that the complainant has received Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioners towards advance for selling his land and this case has been falsely foisted against the petitioners to harass and to misappropriate the advance amount given by the petitioners. It is further submitted that the dispute, at best, may give rise to a civil dispute. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. Learned Add. P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submit that the materials in the record are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which prima facie case has been found by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bokaro.

7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that so far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the essential ingredients to constitute the said offence is that there must be entrustment and there must be misappropriation or conversion to one’s own use or use in violation of a legal direction or obtaining legal possession; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2003) 3 SCC 641.

8. Now, coming to the f