petitioner in a false case making bald allegations. It is further submitted that the complainant never stated about the entrusting any prcperty to the petitioner at any point of time and the same misappropriated or converted into his own use and hence Section 405 IPC does not attract to the petitioner. The learnei senior counsel further submitted that the second respondent entered into an agreement of sale with A.2 only and not with the petitioner" Therefore, question of cheating the second respondent by the petitioner also does not arise. He further submitted that since the second respondent anC his henchmen trespassed into the house of the petitioner in his absence and created galata and based on that the wife of the petitioner filed a complaint against the second respondent and also a suit O.S.No.6 of 2009 claiming damages. As a counter blast to the said cases, the second respondent foisted the present case against the petitioner. He would further submit that the second respondent also filed suit O.S.No.10 of 2009 on 17.4.2009 for recovery of Rs.24,54,52L/- against the petitioner herein along with other accused by suppressing the fact of filing of the private complaint in the instant case. It is his further contention ,hat in O.S.No.10 of 2009 the second respondent
