C.R. Sarma, J.

1. The above two criminal petitions, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr.P.C.) have arisen out of the same F.I.R., lodged by private respondent in both the petitions aforesaid.

By the said petitions, the petitioners, who are accused persons, in GR Case No. 355/2015, arising out of Complaint Case No. 4361C/2013 (Jalukbari P.S. Case No. 25/2014), pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, under Sections 120B/406/420/468 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC), have prayed for quashing the order, dated 30.12.2013, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (M), Kamrup, Guwahati, whereby the learned Magistrate, exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., directed the Police to register a case and investigate into the matter and the First Information Report dated 10.01.2014 i.e. the complaint filed by the private respondent. The private respondent, as complainant, filed a complaint (CR Case No. 4361C/2013) with a prayer under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., for sending the said complaint to the Officer-in-charge, Jalukbari P.S. for registering a case and investigate into the matter and accordingly the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati sent the complaint to Police.

2. The complaint's case, may, in brief, be stated as follows:

The complainant i.e. the private respondent, who was running a business, under the name and style "M/s. M.R. Trading Company", was approached by the accused No. 1, i.e. the petitioner, in Criminal Petition No. 97/2015, with a proposal for purchasing a Large Format Inject Printer Machine for starting a business of printing on glass, tiles etc. with the assurance of earning huge profit. It was also assured that the machine would be installed by the Company of the accused No. 3 i.e. petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 569/2014, from whom the same would be purchased.

On being so assured and persuaded for purchasing the said machine, the complainant, after having discussion with the said accused No. 1 and one Sri Dhananjay Tiwari, (both accused person Nos. 1 and 2, respectively in the said complaint) agreed to purchase the said machine. He was told that the total price of the machine would be Rs. 30 Lakhs and that the same would be installed, after payment of Rs. 5 Lakhs, as advance and that the remaining amount would be required to be paid within a period of nine months.

Accordingly, the complaint, along with the said two accused persons, visited the office of the accused No. 3 i.e. petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 569/2014, on 09.05.2013 at New Delhi and after discussion, the deal was finally settled and accordingly, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the accused No. 3, as advance towards the purchase of the printer, namely, "Nutek Machine, Model No. Fortune Jet 2512/4". The complainant, on being asked by the accused No. 1, signed the money receipt and the agreement in good faith.

As the machine was not sent for about 2 (two) months, the complainant contacted the accused No. 3, who, demanded full payment of Rs. 30 Lakhs and the complainant, having no other alternative, had paid Rs. 25 Lakhs in installments. Though, earlier, it was assured by the accused persons that the transportation cost and sales tax up to 30 Lakhs would be borne by the accused No. 3, subsequently, the accused No. 3 demanded the transportation cost and sale tax also. In the circumstances, the complainant was compelled to pay the transportation cost and other charges.

3. Even after receipt of the said amount by the accused No. 3, the machine was not sent to the petitioner and as such he had deputed the accused No. 1 to go to Delhi to find out the status, regarding delivery of the said machine. The complainant came to know that the accused No. 3, despite receiving the transportation cost, did not pay the same to the carrier and as such the complainant contacted the transport company of Mr. R.K. Singh and