The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the duty to determine whether a complaint and the materials on record disclose the commission of an offence, and that quashing of a complaint is possible when the allegations do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By order, dated 01.12.2004, passed, in CR Case No. 3893C/04, which stands impugned in this revision, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, having taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC, has directed issuance of process against, amongst others, the present petitioner as an accused. I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhuyan, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. Z. Kamar, learned Public Prosecutor, Assam, for the opposite party No. 1. I have also heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned counsel, as amicus curiae. None has appeared on behalf of the remaining opposite party.

2. Before entering into the contents of the complaint and determine the question as to whether the complaint discloses commission of any offence, more particularly, under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, as against the present accused-petitioner, it is imperative to note that the accused No. 1, namely, Broadway Foods Ltd., is, admittedly, a company, which stands registered under the Companies Act, 1956, with accused No. 2 being its Chief Manager and accused No. 3 being its Managing Director. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was, at the relevant point of time, Regional Manager, North-Eastern Region, of the said company.

3. The case of the complainant, as discernible from the complaint, the materials submitted therewith and the complainant's statement, may, in brief, be described as under:

(i) On 08.04.2004, accused No. 4, i.e., the present accused-petitioner, representing accused No. 1, 2 and 3, approached the complainant with mala fide intention to induce the complainant to become the Consigning & Forwarding (in short, C & F) agent of accused No. 1. In this regard, accused No. 4 (i.e., the petitioner herein) promised to appoint the complainant as C & F agent of accused No. 4, for the entire North-Eastern Region, for a period of two years on depositing a sum of Rupees five lakhs as the security deposit and also promised to send stocks and products of accused No. 1 to the complainant on the complainant's appointment as C & F agent and continue maintaining uninterrupted flow of supply of its products in the market. Believing in the representations, so made by the accused-petitioner, the complainant deposited a sum of Rupees five lakhs by way of bank draft in the name of the accused No. 1, which is a company, at its Chandigarh branch. On receiving the security deposit of Rupees five lakhs, though the accused-company appointed the complainant as their C & F agent for the entire North-Eastern Region and executed, in this regard, an agreement, on 20.04.2004, the accused No. 1 sent consignment on two occasions and, thereafter, no consignment of goods was sent by the accused-company to the complainant despite repeated demands placed by the complainant with the accused-company. The accused-company has, thus, not made requisite supply of consignments of their goods available with the complainant, and has also misappropriated the said sum of Rupees five lakhs by not refunding the said amount. Thus, the accused-persons, including the present petitioner, has, according to the complainant, committed offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC.

4. Having examined the complainant and complainant's witnesses, under Section 200 IPC, the learned Magistrate, as indicated above, took cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC and directed issuance of summons to all the accused named in the complaint including the present petitioner.

5. Aggrieved by the issuance of process to him, the accused-petitioner has come to this Court contending to the effect, inter alia, that the contents of the complaint and the other materials on record, available before the learned Court below, did not make out any case of commission of offence either under Section 420 and/or 406 IPC and, hence, in such circumstances, taking of cognizance, in the manner as has been done by the learned Court below and the direct