JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 04.04.2012, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, deciding to frame a charge against the petitioners in Criminal Case No. 1920 of 2011, in respect of offences punishable under Section 420, 406/405, 415 and 427 of I.P.C. The petitioners have further challenged the order dated 07.06.2012, passed by the revisional court (Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant (respondent No.2) lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Gadarpur, which was registered as Crime No. 162 of 2008, against the petitioners and five other accused. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that on the Quality Control/Verification Report and recommendation of the complainant, banks used to give loans to the parties. The petitioners were running business in the name of M/s S.K. Sales Corporation. They obtained loan after pledging goods i.e. five thousand fifty two bags of URAD DAL and one hundred eighty drums of mentha oil on the recommendation of the complainant. Later, when the petitioners committed the default in repayment of loan, it was found that more than two thousand bags of URAD DAL were missing and the drums of the mentha oil were filled with the water. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners and other five accused in respect of offences punishable under Section 420, 406/405, 415 and 427 of I.P.C. A cross report was also lodged by the petitioner. Investigation of said F.I.R. also resulted in the charge sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no entrustment of property to the petitioners, as such, the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 406/405 of I.P.C., are not made out against the petitioners. From the allegations and material on record, it does appear that there was no entrustment of the property to the petitioners, as such, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 406 read with Section 405 of I.P.C. are not made out against the petitioners. However, as far as the offences punishable under Section 420, 415 and 427 of I.P.C. are concerned, this Court agrees with the trial court that material collected on record is sufficient for framing of charge against the petitioners. 5. However, as far as the offences punishable under Section 420, 415 and 427 of I.P.C. are concerned, this Court agrees with the trial court that material collected on record is sufficient for framing of charge against the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is disposed of with the direction that the impugned order dated 04.04.2012, passed by the trial court shall stand set aside onlyto the extent that the charge of offence punishable under Section 405/406 I.P.C. is not made out. But the same is not interfered with in respect of the other offences i.e. offences punishable under Section 420, 415, 427 of I.P.C. The revisional court’s order also stand set aside to the above extent. The trial court shall frame charge accordingly in the light of the observation made above.