Complaint Quashed, Order Set Aside: Compliance Emphasized

The court quashed the complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, set aside the order passed by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, and emphasized compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. regarding summoning accused residing beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The petitioners successfully argued that the Magistrate should have conducted an inquiry before issuing the process, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case. As a result, the court set aside the process issued to the petitioners and remitted the matter back to the Magistrate for proper compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC
2. Setting aside the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru
3. Compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. regarding summoning accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate

Issue 1: Quashing of complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC
The petitioners sought to quash the complaint lodged against them in C.C.No.6390/2015 for alleged offenses punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The petitioners argued that the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate and issuing summons without following the procedure under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. had vitiated the proceedings. They contended that the Magistrate, in cases where the accused resides beyond his jurisdiction, must conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ABHIJIT PAWAR VS. HEMANT MADHUKAR NIMBALKAR was cited to support this argument.

Issue 2: Setting aside the order dated 16.07.2015
The petitioners also sought to set aside the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, taking cognizance of the offenses in PCR No.386/2015 and issuing process to the petitioners in C.C.No.6390/2015. They argued that the order was invalid due to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 202 of Cr.P.C., as the petitioners were residents of Delhi while the petitions were filed in Bengaluru. The petitioners emphasized that the Magistrate should have postponed the issue of process and conducted an inquiry before proceeding further.

Issue 3: Compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. regarding summoning accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
The key contention made by the petitioners was the failure of the learned Magistrate to comply with the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in summoning the accused who resided beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The petitioners argued that the mandatory nature of the provision required the Magistrate to make necessary inquiries into the case himself or direct an investigation before summoning an accused residing outside his jurisdiction. The petitioners relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling to support their argument and successfully persuaded the court to set aside the process issued to them and remit the matter back to the Magistrate for compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by the petitioners, the legal provisions invoked, and the court's decision based on the cited precedents and legal requirements.

---