Amended Section 202 inquiry is mandatory only after process is postponed; not in every complaint case.

Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended, is not mandatory in every complaint case; the Magistrate's duty to inquire into an residing beyond jurisdiction arises only after the Magistrate first exercises discretion to postpone issuance of process. The provision operates within the Chapter XV scheme alongside Sections 200, 203 and 204, and does not curtail the Magistrate's power to examine the complainant and decide whether to issue process or dismiss the complaint. Procedural non-compliance, without a statutory consequence or failure of justice, does not by itself vitiate the proceeding. On that basis, the revisional order setting aside process was held unsustainable and the Magistrate's order restoring process was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory in all complaints, or becomes obligatory only when the Magistrate, in his discretion, postpones issue of process and the accused resides beyond jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 202 is part of the scheme under Chapter XV dealing with complaints to Magistrates. The power to postpone issue of process is discretionary because the section itself uses permissive language. The amendment introduced by Act 25 of 2005 was intended to protect persons residing at far-off places from harassment by false complaints, but the amendment does not override the Magistrate's power under Section 200 to examine the complainant and decide whether to issue process under Section 204 or dismiss the complaint under Section 203. The obligation to inquire into cases involving out-of-jurisdiction accused arises only after the Magistrate chooses, in the exercise of discretion, to postpone issue of process under Section 202. Procedural non-compliance, in the absence of statutory consequence and failure of justice, does not by itself vitiate the proceeding.

Conclusion: The amended Section 202 is not mandatory at the stage of every complaint; it becomes mandatory only when the Magistrate postpones issue of process. The revisional order setting aside the issuance of process was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revisional application succeeded, the order of the Chief Judge was quashed, and the Magistrate's order issuing process was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: The amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a to inquire into cases involving accused residing beyond jurisdiction only when the Magistrate has first exercised discretion to postpone issue of process; it does not mandate such inquiry in every complaint case.

---