The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for specific averments to establish liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the distinction between 'criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating'.

This is an application, made under Sec­tion 482 Cr.PC., seeking to get set aside the order, dated 07.08.2008, passed by a learned Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati, in CR Case No.7889c/2007, whereby the learned Judi­cial Magistrate, having taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420 and 409 read with Section 34 IPC, directed issuance of process to, amongst others, the present ac­cused-petitioners, 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-petitioners, 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 20.06.2003, for purchase of one Indigo LX Black (Diesel) vehicle at a total cost of Rs.5,19,580/-. An agreement was accordingly executed on 20.06.2003. 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 23.01.2006. By the time the agreement, dated 23.01.2006, was ex­ecuted, an amount of Rs.3,23,200/- had al­ready been repaid by the complainant. How­ever, on 24.03.2006, 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 28.03.2006, 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 08.06.2006, 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 sold the veh