1. Heard Mr.Gupte the learned senior counsel for the applicants and Mr.Jethmalani the learned senior counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for both the parties have taken me through the record of the disputes extensively.

2. Admitted fact is that the respondent no.1 is the complainant and the applicants are accused nos.1 and 2 in the complaint filed by the respondent. It is also admitted fact that the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.1 were directors of the company called ’Prime Time Media Services Private Ltd.’ wherein the respondent no.1 and his family members held 50% of the shares while the applicant no.1 and his family members also held 50% shares. On 25-8-1990 another company named ’Prime Time Video Communications Private Limited’ was incorporated and the applicant no.1 and the respondent no.1 held the equal shares in that company also. These two companies may be referred as ’Prime Time Group’. The respondent no.1 complainant contended that the applicant no.1 represented to him that the business of the Prime Time was declining and the Prime Time could be wound up or the respondent no.1 could transfer his share holding in the company to the applicant no.1 and his family members. The applicant no.1 prepared a trial balance-sheet for the period from April, 1992 to October, 1992 showing net worth of the said company as Rs.9 lakhs. Believing the representation and the trial balance-sheet, the respondent no.1 sold shares of himself and his family members to the applicant no.1 for a sum of Rs.4,50,000/-. That payment was made. Later on, the respondent no.1 came across certain records and materials to show that the company was worth Rs.45 lakhs and the value was not correctly shown and thus, the applicant no.1 had cheated him. In view of this, he filed a complaint, which came to be registered as criminal case no.32 of 1995 under Sections 420, 120B of the I.P.C. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed the police to investigate the case and accordingly the Assistant Inspector of Police submitted enquiry report dated 1st February, 1996. Relying on that report, the learned Magistrate passed the order dated 24-5-1996 and dismissed that complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. It was noted by the concerned police officer and, relying on that report, by the learned Magistrate that as per the complainant, net worth of the Prime Time was Rs.45 lakhs but the documents, which he had produced were unauthenticated and, therefore, those documents could not be considered. After dismissal of that complaint, the respondent no.1 filed second complaint in September, 1996 on the same facts but alongwith the authenticated documents showing that the applicants had actually cheated him by representing that net worth was Rs.9 lakhs while infact, it was Rs.45 lakh. On the basis of that second complaint, process was issued on 19-1-1997 and the case was registered as criminal case no.34/S/1997 on 28th March, 2000. The applicants filed an application before the learned Magistrate seeking discharge from the case. The learned Magistrate rejected that application holding that it was necessary to record the evidence and it was also necessary to give full opportunity to the parties to lead the evidence and to find out the truth. That order was passed on 10th June, 2004. That order was challenged in criminal revision application no.1210 of 2005. That revision application also came to be dismissed on 4-4-2006. Being aggrieved by dismissal of that revision application , the accused persons have filed the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The main contention of the applicants is that when the first