IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 22 OF 2010 MRS. FLAVIA PEREIRA AND ANR. ... Petitioner Versus BOSCO CAETANO CARDOZO E FERNANDES AND ANR. ... Respondent Mr. A. Kamat, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 23rd March, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. This petition is directed against order dated 10/08/2008 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, by which the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition and has quashed and set aside the charge framed against the respondents under Section 406 IPC. 3. The subject property surveyed under No.16/A belonged to one Mr. Estevao Cardozo and apparently after his death it has devolved on the petitioner no.1 as well as respondent no.1. The property has not been partitioned and the suit for partition is pending. Apparently, both the parties are the co-owners of the said property each having a joint and undivided interest in the said property. Respondent no.1 created a mortgage in respect of the said property and took a loan of Rs.20 lacs, whereupon the petitioners herein filed a complaint against the respondents under Section 420 and 406 IPC. No process was issued against the respondents/accused under Section 420. Process was issued only under Section 406 IPC. In the course of the inquiry, the petitioner no.1/complainant conceded and stated as follows; "I did not entrust the property about which I have deposed in this suit on to the accused. No one had entrusted the suit property unto the accused. I have not entrusted the dominion over this property to the accused. My brothers and sisters also did not entrust dominion over this property to the accused. No one entrusted the said property unto the accused." 4. Shri Kamat, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/complainants submits that the complainants are residing in Bombay while the accused are residing in Goa and it is accused who has been looking after the property. The learned Counsel further submits that the complainants and the accused are co-owners of the said property and being co-owners there was implied entrustment by the complainants in favour of the accused. 5. The learned Revisional Court referred to the case of R.K. Dalima V/s. Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1962 SC 1821 and held that the principle laid down therein was applicable to the case at hand. The learned Revisional Court referred to the said decision and held that the Section relating to criminal breach of trust does not admit of an interpretation that there can be entrustment of property belonging to one's self and till the property was divided and partitioned, the complainants and the accused persons being co-owners have community of interest and no part of the said property could be deemed to be the separate property of any co-owner and thus the accused persons being the co-owners of the said property could not be said to have been entrusted with the said property which belongs to them along with others. The learned Revisional Court also took note of the admissions made by the complainant no.1 reproduced herein above and then proceeded to allow the revision petition and quashed and set aside the process issued against respondents/accused under Section 406 IPC. 6. In my view, considering the statement of complainant no.1 that they had not entrusted the property to the accused and the law laid down by the Apex Court, no fault could be found with the impugned order. Although, the Apex Court, in the decision cited hereinabove has held that the word property may not be restricted to movable property in relation to Sections 405/406 IPC, on facts stated by the complainant no charge could be framed. 7. In the light of the above, I find there is no merit in this petition and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH