This application under Section 482 read with Section 397/401 of the Code of Crimi­nal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to quash the complaint as well as proceeding in C.R. Case No. 175C/2003 and the order dated 13.03,2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 406/420/34 IPC and issuing process against ther present petitioners.

2. The sole Opposite Party as complain­ant had filed the complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj, which was transferred to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Maghrate, Karimganj, wherein C.R. Case No. 175C of 2003 was registered. The complainant had examined himsel f and had also examained one witness and based on the complaint as well as the initial deposi­tion and the evidence of the said witness, as has been noted herein above, by order dated 13.03.2003, the learned Magistrate, on be­ing satisfied, had taken cognizance of the of­fence under Section 406/420/34 IPC and had issued process. It would be relavant to state that along with the complaint, the complain­ant had enclosed a copy of an agreement dated 14.05.1996 and a copy of a notice dated 03.02.2003.

3. In the complaint petition the complain­ant stated that he was a businessman and was in possession of a Diesel Generating Set (DG Set). It has been stated that the Sr. Manager, Construction, DLF Industries Ltd., Adamtilla "for creating confidence told the complainant that if the complainant agreed he would per­form a contract on behalf of the company" for the purpose of giving on rent the DG Set to the company and it is further stated in the complaint that based on such inducement, he had executed an agreement dated 1 4.05, 1 996 with the company, signed by the Sr. Manager, (Constructions) in terms of which a monthly rent of Rs. 18,000,- was fixed and that accordingly, the complaint had delivered possssion of DG Set on 15.05. 1996. It was also stated that in spite of repeated demands, till the filing of the com­plaint petition, only about Rs. 30,000/- was paid as rent. The complainant, lastly, on 03.02.2003, demanded payment of the arrear rent and also return of the DG Set and getting no reseponse, filed the complaint.

4. I have heard Mr. J, M. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri B.M. Choudhury, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri M. Dutta, learned counsel for the Op­posite Party and also perused the materials on record.

5. Mr. J. M. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in absence of any allegations against the petitioners, no offence under Section 406/420/34 IPC is made out against petitioners. It is also the contention of Mr. Choudhury that even if the allegations in complaint petition are taken in its face value and accepted in its entirety and deemed to be true, the same do not and cannot relate to the petitioners, in view of the fact that in the complaint petition, neither the name of the person who had induced the complainant to enter into the agreement was disclosed, nor there was any role attributed to the present petitioners save and except saying that the company being a juristic person, the present petitioners represent the company. Mr. Choudhury further submits, at best, the alle­gations as contained in the complaint petition can give rise to civil liability against the com­pany. He further submits that perrm ting the present complaint to proceed, would result in manifest injustice to the petitioners and the same would be an abuse of the process of the Court.

6. Mr. Dutta, appearing for the Opposite Party, on the other hand justifies the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance. He has submitted that it would be apparent from the perusal of the agreement and the notice that there is a subsisting dispite and the com­plainant is entitled to receive rent in terms of the said agreement date 14.05.1996. Mr. Dutta submits that non mentioning of name of any person in the complaint would have