Mandatory Section 202 inquiry and specific Section 141 averments are essential before cheque dishonour process can continue.

Where the complainant is outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, a meaningful inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is mandatory before process is issued, and a mechanical reliance only on the complaint and Section 200 verification is insufficient. A complaint under Section 138 NI Act must also contain specific averments that the concerned director was in charge of and responsible for the company's business to attract vicarious liability under Section 141; their absence is fatal. The text further notes that a mismatch between the pleaded liability and the cheque amount can undermine maintainability at the threshold. The process order and consequential proceedings were quashed, while locus to challenge was accepted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order issuing process was vitiated for -compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the complaint disclosed the essential averments required to fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (iii) whether the complaint was liable to fail because the cheque amount exceeded the liability pleaded in the complaint; and (iv) whether the petitioner had locus to maintain the challenge.

Issue (i): Whether the order issuing process was vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The complaint showed that the complainant was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The order issuing process reflected only a perusal of the complaint, supporting documents, and verification under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The required inquiry under Section 202 was not meaningfully conducted, and the issuance of process was treated as mechanical.

Conclusion: The order issuing process was vitiated for failure to comply with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed the essential averments required to fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complaint did not contain a clear assertion that the concerned director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time. Since vicarious liability under Section 141 is exceptional and depends on specific pleadings, the absence of such averments was fatal.

Conclusion: The complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and was unsustainable against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the complaint was liable to fail because the cheque amount exceeded the liability pleaded in the complaint.

Analysis: The amount of the cheque was higher than the liability stated in the complaint. Such a discrepancy could not be brushed aside at the threshold where the complaint itself did not support the cheque amount claimed. On the facts, this also weighed against maintainability.

Conclusion: The discrepancy between the pleaded liability and the cheque amount supported interference at the threshold.

Issue (iv): Whether the petitioner had locus to maintain the challenge.

Analysis: The petitioner established authority to prosecute the challenge on behalf of the company, and the objection on locus was not accepted.

Conclusion: The petitioner had locus to maintain the writ petition and revision challenge.

Final Conclusion: The process order and the consequential complaint proceedings were quashed and set aside, as the foundational requirements for continuing the prosecution were not met.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused resides outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, a proper inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must contain specific averments to attract vicarious liability under Section 141.

---