ORDER : 1. Report on service of notice upon O.P. No. 2 has been received in the Registry, a copy thereof has been attached with Flag-R. 2. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as accused no. 2 in Complaint Case No. 2286 of 2017, has challenged the order dated 07.09.2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 2286 of 2017 by which process has been issued against her. 3. In the complaint case, the petitioner has been projected as Associate Vice-President of M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. 4. Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that a bare reading of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the enquiry witness does not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner. 5. Under the general scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate has been given undoubted discretion; under section 203 Cr.P.C he may dismiss the complaint or issue process to the proposed accused under section 204 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate upon examination of the complainant on oath and the witnesses, if any, may take cognizance of the offence under section 200 Cr.P.C, however, if the Magistrate thinks proper he may postpone issuance of the process against the proposed accused for causing an enquiry in the matter under section 202 Cr.P.C. The enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C may be caused by the Magistrate himself or he may seek a report from the police or by such other persons as he thinks fit. The object behind section 202 Cr.P.C is to empower the Magistrate to conduct enquiry to ascertain truth or otherwise in the complaint and to find out whether there is any material supporting the allegations in the complaint on the basis of which summons can be issued to a proposed accused to face the trial. To save the innocent persons from harassment due to their false implication in the criminal case, section 202 Cr.P.C was amended in the year, 2005. Now, it is mandatory for the Magistrate to cause an enquiry if the complaint discloses place of residence of a proposed accused outside his territorial jurisdiction. In “Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar & Another” reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 , explaining the purpose of enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “9. In “Vadilal Panchal Vs. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar & Another” reported in AIR 1960 SC 1113 , explaining the purpose of enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “9. .........The inquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint; that is, for ascertaining whether there is evidence in support of the complaint so as to justify the issue of process and commencement of proceedings against the person concerned.…...” 6. No doubt, before issuing process under section 204 Cr.P.C all that the Magistrate is required to ascertain whether there is sufficient material to form an opinion that a prima-facie case has been made out but then it is not that in every case the Magistrate must issue process whenever a complaint is filed. 7. In “Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and others” reported in (1976) 3 SCC 252 it has been observed that the expression “may take” should not be taken by the Magistrate as “must take” and issue process in every case. Exercise of powers under section 204 Cr.P.C must be founded on subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate which, of course, a Magistrate forms on the basis of the materials produced before him. The powers under section 204 Cr.P.C is no doubt discretionary, however, the exercise of powers by the Magistrate issuing process to an accused to face the trial must be a judicious exercise of powers. 8. In the complaint, M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd is accused no. 1 and the company is represented through the petitioner who has been made accused no. 2. The accused no. 3 is M/s Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd., which is a dealer of M/s Tata Motors. The complainant has pleaded that he entered into loan-cum-hypothecation agreement on 29.08.2015 for obtaining loan of Rs. 3,43,000/-with local branch of M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. He admits that the amount of loan sanctioned to him was duly paid to M/s Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd.-accused no. 3, which delivered the vehicle to him. He also admits that on 30.08.2015 all necessary documents have been supplied to him and the vehicle has been duly registered with the District Transport Office vide registration No. JH05 BG 4282. The vehicle, which is insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., met with an accident on 22.10.2015 and it was sent for repairing to accused no. He also admits that on 30.08.2015 all necessary documents have been supplied to him and the vehicle has been duly registered with the District Transport Office vide registration No. JH05 BG 4282. The vehicle, which is insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., met with an accident on 22.10.2015 and it was sent for repairing to accused no. 3. In paragraph no. 13 of the complaint, the complainant admits that till 24.08.2016 he had made part-payment of the monthly installments and he was hoping to regularise the repayment of loan amount after the repaired vehicle is delivered to him (para-14). However, he has asserted that on 19.11.2016 the muscle-man of the financer company took forcibly possession of vehicle. There is a reference of the notice issued to complainant and his wife by the financer company, notice for arbitration and the notice issued by the arbitrator and reply by the complainant through lawyer etc, in the complaint. But, there is no allegation in the complaint disclosing any role played by the petitioner. In fact, in paragraph no. 3 and other paragraphs the complainant himself has disclosed that he has dealt with the local branch of M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. The petitioner is the Associate Vice-President of M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd and she has asserted that she is the head of the Customer Care of M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd; she is posted at Thane. She has further asserted that she was never posted at Jamshedpur and she has never dealt with sale of the vehicles. 9. In the above facts, if at all the petitioner is sought to be implicated in the criminal case fastening vicarious liability on her it is necessary to plead in the complaint that at the relevant time she was in-charge of the affairs of the company. It was also necessary that process should have been issued to the company-accused no. 1, however, the learned Magistrate by the order dated 07.09.2018 has held that sufficient material against M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd-accused no. 1 and M/s Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd-accused no. 3 is not on record for issuing the process against them. Neither in the complaint nor in the statement of the enquiry witness or the complainant himself, there is any reference on the role played by the petitioner which would constitute offence under section 406, 504, 506 and 385 IPC. 1 and M/s Mithila Motors Pvt. Ltd-accused no. 3 is not on record for issuing the process against them. Neither in the complaint nor in the statement of the enquiry witness or the complainant himself, there is any reference on the role played by the petitioner which would constitute offence under section 406, 504, 506 and 385 IPC. There was no entrustment of the vehicle by the complainant to the petitioner and it is also not a case pleaded by the complainant that the petitioner has any role to play when the vehicle was forcibly re-possessed allegedly by the muscle-man of M/s Tata Motors Finance Ltd. 10. In the above facts, I am of the opinion that not only institution of the complaint case against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law, the learned Magistrate has completely failed to apply his mind on the materials brought before him. 11. Accordingly, order dated 07.09.2018 by which summons has been issued against the petitioner is quashed. 12. In the result, Cr.M.P. No. 3886 of 2018 is allowed.