R.K.BAG, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision is preferred by the petitioners for quashing the proceeding being C.R. Case No. 921 of 2010 under Sections 406/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Siliguri.
(2.) IT appears from the materials on record that the opposite party no.1 filed a petition of complaint against the petitioners in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siliguri and the said petition of complaint was registered as C.R. Case No. 921 of 2010. By pointing out Paragraph -8 of the petition of complaint Mr. Pushpal Satpati, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party no.2 has only stated about the entrustment of the property to the petitioners but there is no averment in the petition of complaint that the said property is misappropriated and as such no offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and as such the criminal proceeding may be quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Moinak Bakshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 submits that the opposite party no.1 has specifically mentioned in Paragraph -3 of the petition of complaint that the property in question was entrusted to the petitioners at Siliguri and petitioners have illegally kept those properties in their custody for wrongful gain and have been using the same and trying to misappropriate the same and as such the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is clearly made out.;