Mandatory Section 202 enquiry and limitation bar prevent process on a private cruelty complaint filed out of time.

Where accused persons reside outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires postponement of process and a proper enquiry or investigation before summons can issue; mere reliance on the complaint and verification is insufficient, and process issued without that enquiry cannot be sustained. A private complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code filed beyond the applicable limitation period also cannot proceed in the absence of an application for condonation of delay, and attempting to prosecute after expiry of limitation is treated as an abuse of process. The impugned process was accordingly set aside on both grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether process could be issued against accused persons residing beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction without the enquiry mandated by the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the private complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was barred by limitation and liable to be entertained without any application for condonation of delay.

Issue (i): Whether process could be issued against accused persons residing beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction without the enquiry mandated by the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The amended provision requires postponement of process and an enquiry or investigation where the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Mere perusal of the complaint and the verification statement is not enough to satisfy this requirement. The Magistrate must apply judicial mind and undertake a sufficient enquiry before issuing process, particularly to prevent harassment of persons residing beyond jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The process was issued in violation of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the private complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was barred by limitation and liable to be entertained without any application for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The last alleged incident of cruelty was stated to be in July 2004, whereas the private complaint was filed in December 2007, beyond the three-year period applicable to the offence. No application for condonation of delay was filed. The attempt to prosecute the remaining accused after expiry of limitation was treated as lacking bona fides and amounting to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The complaint was barred by limitation and ought not to have been entertained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned process was set aside on both grounds of non-compliance with the mandatory preliminary enquiry and bar of limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where accused persons reside beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, compliance with the amended Section 202 enquiry requirement is mandatory before issuance of process, and a private complaint filed beyond the limitation period cannot proceed in the absence of condonation of delay.

---