Meaningful Section 202 inquiry required before process in cheque dishonour complaints; repeated verification alone is insufficient.

Where a Magistrate is directed to conduct an inquiry under Section 202(1) before reconsidering process in a cheque dishonour complaint, the inquiry must be meaningful and sufficient to support a prima facie assessment of the complaint, the liability alleged, and, where relevant, the role of each accused. Mere repetition of the complainant's verification statement, without adding anything material, does not satisfy that direction. The fresh order issuing process was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the Magistrate was required to undertake a brief but effective inquiry before deciding whether process should issue and against which accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate, after being directed to hold an inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, complied with that direction before issuing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the fresh process order was sustainable.

Analysis: The complaint alleged dishonour of a cheque said to have been issued towards part payment of an outstanding liability. In such a complaint, the inquiry contemplated by Section 202(1) may be limited, but it must still enable the Magistrate to examine whether there is a prima facie basis to issue process, including the nature of the liability and, where relevant, the role of individual accused persons. Mere recording of the complainant's statement, when it adds nothing beyond the verification already recorded, does not amount to the inquiry directed by the Court. Since the earlier order had specifically required an inquiry before process could be reconsidered, the Magistrate was bound to undertake a meaningful limited inquiry and not treat the verification statement as sufficient compliance.

Conclusion: The fresh order issuing process was unsustainable and was set aside; the Magistrate was required to conduct a brief inquiry and then decide whether process should issue, including against which accused.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Magistrate is required to hold an inquiry under Section 202(1) before issuing process, a mere repetition of the verification statement is not compliance if it does not enable a prima facie assessment of the complaint and the liability of the accused.

---