JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioners impugn order dated 14.12.2017 whereby the revisional court had allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 impugning order on charge of the Trial Court dated 07.09.2013 and discharged respondent nos. 2 and 3 of the charges which were framed against them by the Trial Court for the offences under Section 420/120-B of the IPC.

2. Petitionersare the complainants and, on their complaint, FIR No. 156/2003 at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur had been registered.

3. Petitioners and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 were partners in a partnership firm by the name – Indian Organic Food along with one Shri Baldev Singh. The current account in the name of the firm in State Bank of India was operated by all the five partners jointly and severally.

4. One Mr. Buecker of Germany who was friend of respondent nos. 2 and 3was inducted as partner in the firm. However, he subsequently resigned on 19.01.1999. Commercial relations between the firm and Mr. Buecker continued. It is alleged that in March 2002 differences arose between the partners of the firm – Indian Organic Food. Subsequently, respondent nos. 2 and 3 intimated the State Bank of India on 23.07.2002, instructing the bank to stop all withdrawals from the current account. The bank stopped operations of the current account, however, under orders of this court, operations of the bank account were restored. Subsequently, the firm was dissolved on

05.08.2002.

5. It is alleged that at that time approximately Rs. 2 crores was due and payable to the partnership firm by Mr. Buecker. Petitioner No. 1 filed a suit inter aliafor recovery of the money against Mr. Buecker in Germany. It is alleged that the petitioners received a letter dated 29.03.2003 from Mr. Buecker informing that a sum of Euro 40000 had been paid by him in the bank account of the firm prior to its dissolution. It is alleged that enquiries revealed that respondent nos. 2 and 3 had opened a saving account with Canara Bank describing the same as an account C/o Indian Organic Food. It is alleged that the respondents despite receipt of the amount did not transmit the payment to the current account of the firm.

6. It is further alleged that during investigation the petitioners made another complaint that another payment of Rs. 22,80,000/- had been remitted in the firm of the relatives of the respondents and the said amount also belonged to Indian Organic Food. It is alleged that the respondents had terminated the cultivation agreement with farmers of the said firm and had got executed fresh agreements with farmers with Indian Organic Farm and the respondents are also alleged to have informed the Nodal Agency – Institute for Marketecology (IMO) that Indian Organic Farm was the new name of the firm Indian Organic Food.

7. It is alleged that during investigation Mr. Buecker informed that payments made by him to Indian Organic Farm were not related to Indian Organic Food.

8. As per the charge sheet investigation revealed that out of the amount received by the respondents, payments were made to various entities /creditors of Indian Organic Food.

9. In its order dated 07.09.2013 the trial court was of the view that no offence under Section 406 of the IPC was made out. However, charges were framed under Section 420/120B of the IPC against the said respondents.

10. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 filed the revision petition. Revisional Court by the impugned order dated 14.12.2017 set aside the order dated 07.02.2013 on the ground that no offence under Section 420 or 120B IPC was made out. A civil dispute was given the colour of criminal action. The revisional court accordingly discharged respondent no. 2 and 3.

11. Petitioners have thus impugned the order of the revisional court discharging respondent nos. 2 and 3.

12. Section 415 IPC reads as under: -

Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to cons