P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. has been filed by accused Nos. 2 and 4 in I. C. C. No. 214 of 1996 of the Court of S. D. J. M. , Bhubaneswar with the prayer to quash the complaint and the order of cognizance and issue of process under Section 204, Cr. P. C. passed against them on 4-11-1997. ( 2 ) THE complainant/opposite party No. 1 on 15-7-1994 purchased and delivered with a 'tata Estate Car'. Because of mechanical defects in that vehicle and, as alleged, sub-standard mechinaries, the complainant alleged the offence of cheating punishable under Ss. 417 and 420, I. P. C. Learned S. D. J. M. , Bhubaneswar on 4-11-1997 took cognizance of that offence on the basis of the averments made in the complaint as well as initial statement of the complainant and, vide the impugned order, issued process against the accused persons in accordance with the provisions in Section 204, Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) IN the application under S. 482, Cr. P. C. supported by affidavit of the accused No. 4 while denying to the accusation, the petitioners have asserted that the complaint and the initial statement read together do not disclose existence of a prima facie case for the aforesaid offences as against the petitioners and therefore, the order relating to issue of process on the basis of cognizance order is bad in law and non-sustainable. They have also alleged that, after being unsuccessful in the Consumer Redressal Forum and the Civil Court in obtaining any interim or final order relating to the claim of damage, the complainant at a belated stage has engineered such a complaint, which amounts to abuse of process of Court. Petitioners have also stated and argued that without due application of mind learned S. D. J. M. passed order for issue of process; therefore, S. D. J. M. passed order for issue of process; therefore, such order is illegal and non-sustainable. Though opposite party after receipt of notice entered appearance through counsel but did not file any counter affidavit denying to the aforesaid assertion and allegations advanced by the petitioners. Though opposite party after receipt of notice entered appearance through counsel but did not file any counter affidavit denying to the aforesaid assertion and allegations advanced by the petitioners. ( 4 ) BE that as it may, the prayer relating to quashing of the complaint so far as the petitioners are concerned, is to be considered on the basis of the materials which exist on record, i. e. , the complaint and the statement of the complainant recorded under S. 200, Cr. P. C. and not on the basis of absence of counter affidavit of the complainant. Similarly, this Court shall not take into consideration the failure of the complainant in the other forums as a ground to quash the complaint as against the petitioners inasmuch as the scope and jurisdiction under S. 190 read with S. 204, Cr. P. C. is distinctly different than that of a civil remedy. Making the position clear in that manner, the grievance of the petitioners is considered in the following manner. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners who are other than one Mohanty Babu of Tata Finance Company, the allegation in the complaint or the statement in the initial statement of the complainant do not constitute a prima facie case against either of the petitioners for the offences under Sections 417 or 420, I. P. C. On a careful perusal of the complaint and the initial statement besides the ingredients of the aforesaid two offences, this Court is quite satisfied that no prima facie case is made out against either of the two petitioners so as to connect them with the alleged offences in any manner. It may be noted here that the names of the two petitioners have not been implicated specifically in connection with the alleged crime. In the matter relating to transaction of purchase and delivery of the car also names of the two petitioners have not been utilised in any manner. Under such circumstance, this Court finds that there is absolutely no case made out against the petitioners so as to implicate them even prima facie with the alleged crime for the purpose of issue of process under S. 204, Cr. P. C. Learned S. D. J. M. , as it appears, has failed in his duty to apply his judicial mind while passing the impugned order for issue of process. P. C. Learned S. D. J. M. , as it appears, has failed in his duty to apply his judicial mind while passing the impugned order for issue of process. Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable as against the petitioners. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, invoking the inherent power to save the proceeding from the abuse of process of Court for the aforesaid glaring wanting of a prima facie case against the petitioners, this Court quashes the complaint as against the petitioners by quashing the order of issue of process as against them. The Criminal Misc. case is allowed accordingly. Petition allowed.