JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This revision petition is directed against the order of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh Bas, Distt. Alwar, dated 29.6.92, whereby he has framed the charge under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner and non-petitioner No.2 jointly purchased a truck No.RJ-02/G-0255, after taking loan from the Bank. The Bank has given the loan of RS.2,50,000/-. They also entered into agreement on 13.8.90, whereby it is agreed upon that petitioner will have 1/4 share of the income of the nut and also liable to pay 1/4 share of the loan. Similarly the non-petitioner will have 3/4 share of the income of the truck and to pay 3/4 share of the loan. The truck was taken by the petitioner in his possession for some time, and when no account of income was given by him to non-petitioner No.2, the non-petitioner No. 2 made the complaint in Court against the petitions, for the offenceunder sections 420 & 406 Indian Penal Code. After investigation the police filed the challan. Thereafter, the trial Court took cognizance against the police for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code, vide order dated 29.6.92. Being dis-satisfied with the order of cognizance this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a partner in the ownership of the truck, having 1/4 share of the income as well as in the loan of the truck, there is no question of mis-appreciation as per the provisions of Section 406 Indian Penal Code. He placed reliance on the decision of their Lordship in the case of Velji Raghavji Patel v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 1433 . 4. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 submits that non-petitioner No.2 is the real owner of the truck and non-petitioner No.2 has only paid part of the amount of loan and petitioner has not paid even a single pie against loan of the truck. Therefore, the income which has been earned, by the truck, by the petitioner and not given to the non-petitioner No.2, thereby the petitioner has committed the offence u/ Section 11 Indian Penal Code. 5. I perused the material on record. Therefore, the income which has been earned, by the truck, by the petitioner and not given to the non-petitioner No.2, thereby the petitioner has committed the offence u/ Section 11 Indian Penal Code. 5. I perused the material on record. There is no dispute on the fact that loan has been taken by the petitioner and non-petitioner No.2, jointly from Punjab National Bank and both are liable to pay the loan in question. I have also perused the agreement dated 13.8.90, wherein it is agreed upon that the petitioner will have 1/4 share of the income of the truck and liable to pay 1/4 share of the loan. Similarly the non-petitioner No.2 will have 3/4 share of the income of the truck and liable to pay 3/4 share of the loan. In view of these two documents alone, it is difficult to say that the petitioner has committed offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code. 6. Both the Counsel for parties have not disputed the fact that loan for the truck has been taken in the name of petitioner and non-petitioner No.2. Similarly, thereafter they have entered into agreement, whereby both the parties agreed that the petitioner will have share in income and the cost of the truck to the extent of 1/4. Similarly the non-petitioner No.2 will have share in the income and the cost of the truck to the extent of 3/4 share as per the agreement. Therefore, the parties are directed to settle their account of income and liability of the truck, within three months, in accordance with the agreement dated 13.8.90. The revision petition is allowed and the charge so framed is quashed.The revision petition is allowed as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******