I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an application, made under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to get set aside the Order dated 7-8-2008, passed by a learned Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, in CR Case No. 7889/2007, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, having taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 409 read with Section 34, I.P.C. directed issuance of process to, amongst others, the present accused-Petitioner, the Petitioner No. 1 being the accused No. 1 and the Petitioner No. 2 being accused No. 2 in the complaint case aforementioned.

2. I have heard Ms. M. Hazarika, learned Senior counsel, for the accused-Petitioner, and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant-opposite party.

3. Before entering into the contents of the complaint and determining the question as to whether the complaint discloses commission of any offence, it is imperative to point out, at the very outset, that the accused-Petitioner No. 1, namely, Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Service Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused company') is, admittedly, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, which finances purchase of vehicles, and the accused-Petitioner No. 2 is its Managing Director. As far as the remaining accused persons, against whom processes have been directed to be issued, are concerned, they are not Petitioners in the present proceeding.

4. The complainant's case may, in brief, be described thus: In the month of April, 2003, agents and representatives of the accused company approached the complainant with various schemes of financing, as regards purchase of vehicles, on the basis of hire-purchase agreement. Induced by accused Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Managing Director and Branch Manager of the accused company respectively, the complainant entered into a hire-purchase agreement with the accused company, on 20-6-2003, for purchase of one Indigo LX Black (Diesel) vehicle at a total cost of Rs. 5,19,580/-. As agreement was accordingly executed on 20-6-2003. Out of the said total cost of Rs. 5,19,580/-, an amount of Rs. 2,06,083/- was the own investment of the complainant and the balance amount of Rs. 3,14,000/- was in the form of loan from the accused company. In terms of the agreement, the entire loan was to be repaid within a period of 36 months, the total repayable amount, including interest, being Rs. 4,72,000/-. In the month of January, 2006, accused No. 3, namely, Branch Manager of the accused company, asked the complainant to execute a fresh agreement for a further period of three years in respect of the balance amount payable by the complainant. The complainant accordingly entered into a fresh agreement on 23-1-2006. By the time the agreement, dated 23-1-2006, was executed, an amount of Rs. 3,23,200/- had already been repaid by the complainant. However, on 24-3-2006, the accused No. 4, who is an agent of the accused company, seized the vehicle, on the street, at the time, when the minor daughter of the complainant, along with his elder brother, was travelling in the said vehicle. When the complainant went to bring the vehicle, accused No. 4 replied that he was acting under the instructions of the accused No. 2, namely, Managing Director of the accused company. The complainant was further asked by accused No. 4 to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- within five days to be able to take back the vehicle. Having been left with no alternative, the complainant, on 28-3-2006, paid Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the complainant was asked to wait for some more time on the ground that certain formalities were required to be completed. Eventually, the complainant was served with a letter, dated 8-6-2006, issued by the Branch Manager of the accused company, whereby the complainant was asked to pay the balance dues within a period of three days and take delivery of the vehicle or else, the vehicle would be disposed of. When the complainant went to bring the vehicle, he came to learn that the accused had already so