I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Apart from seeking, with the help of the present application, made under Section 482 CrPC., quashing of the complaint, which gave rise to Complaint Case No.9695C/2006, on the ground that the complaint, in question, is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence, the petitioners have also sought for quashing of the order, dated 02.01.2007, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, whereby, having taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, has directed issuance of summons against, amongst others, the present petitioners as accused. The case of the complainant may, in brief, be set out as under :

(i) The complainant is the Managing Director of M/S Shiva Bottles Private Limited; whereas the accused No. 1, namely, M/S Samsung India Electronic Private Limited Company is a company, with accused No. 2, as its Public Relation Officer and the accused No. 3, as the proprietor of Triveni Infotech, is a retailer of the products of M/S Samsung India Electronic Private Limited Company.

(ii) The complainant purchased a Samsung Laser Printer from M/S Triveni Infotech, at AT Road, on 20-01-2006, on being convinced by accused No. 3, that the complainant would avail a toner, free of cost, against such Laser Printer. Upon purchase of the said Laser Printer, the complainant was asked by accused No. 3 to submit, through internet, a form for the Scheme, whereunder the free toner was to be provided, the filling up of the form being mandatory, in nature, to enable a buyer obtain free toner, whereupon accused No. 2, who is the Public Relation Officer of the accused No. 1, sent a letter to the complainant informing him about the complainant's registration under the said Scheme for providing free toner and asked the complainant to submit some documents with a demand draft of Rs. 250/- in favour of M/s. Samsung India Limited, as handling charge, of the free toner. Acting upon the instructions, so received from accused No. 2, the complainant sent the requisite demand draft, which the accused No. 2 had received.

(iii) Thereafter, though the complainant had several telephonic talks with accused No. 2 and accused No. 2 had been informing the complainant that he would send the free toner, whenever stocks become available, the free toner was not sent and the complainant had to issue a notice to the accused, on 19-09-2006, demanding them to fulfill their promise as regards free toner. After receiving the notice, accused No.3, as the retailer of the product, in question, sent a letter to the complainant stating therein to the effect that he had no role to play in providing free toner as the Scheme was, directly, offered by M/S Samsung India Electronic Private Limited Company to the customers. However, accused No. 3 did write, in his said letter, that he would, of course, request the accused company to deliver the complainant's promised free toner.

(iv) The complainant, thus, smelled dishonest intention of the accused from its very beginning and, hence, came to the conclusion that the accused had intentionally defrauded the complainant and committed thereby offences under Section 420 IPC as well as Section 406 IPC.

2. Having examined the complainant, the learned Court below, as indicated above, directed issuance of processes against the petitioners as accused. Aggrieved by the direction to issue processes, as indicated hereinbefore, the petitioners are, now, before this Court challenging the legality of the complaint, in question, and also the legality and validity of the impugned order, dated 02-01-2007, aforementioned.

3. Coupled with the above, what cannot and must not be ignored is that the impugned order, dated 02-01-2007, ex facie suffers from non-application of mind inasmuch as the learned Court below has issued processes against the accused-petitioners under the penal provisions of Section