Section 202 CrPC inquiry not mandatory in every out-of-jurisdiction complaint where a prima facie case supports process

Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended, was construed harmoniously with Sections 200, 203 and 204 to mean that a Magistrate need not in every case postpone issuance of process merely because the accused resides outside territorial jurisdiction. The duty to hold an inquiry or direct investigation arises only if the Magistrate chooses to defer process under Section 202(1). Where a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act discloses a prima facie case on the materials before the Magistrate, direct issuance of process under Section 204 is not invalidated by the absence of a separate Section 202 inquiry.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the amendment to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Magistrate is bound to postpone issuance of process and hold an inquiry or direct investigation whenever the accused resides beyond territorial jurisdiction, and whether non-compliance with that provision vitiates issuance of process in a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 202, as amended, was construed in the setting of Chapter XV of the Code, particularly Sections 200, 203 and 204. The text of Section 202 was held not to displace the Magistrate's power to proceed from examination under Section 200 to issuance of process under Section 204 where a prima facie case is already disclosed. The mandatory duty to inquire or direct investigation was treated as arising only when the Magistrate chooses to postpone process under Section 202(1). The provision was read harmoniously with the rest of the scheme, and not as imposing an absolute pre-summoning inquiry in every case merely because the accused resides outside jurisdiction. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the statutory requirements and supporting documents are placed before the Magistrate and a prima facie case exists, issuance of process without a separate Section 202 inquiry was held not to invalidate the proceedings.

Conclusion: The amended Section 202 did not compel postponement of process in every complaint against an out-of-jurisdiction accused, and the challenge to the summoning order failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional applications were rejected, and the trial court was permitted to proceed with the complaint in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: The amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory only when the Magistrate postpones issuance of process; it does not bar direct issuance of process under Section 204 where, on the materials under Section 200, a prima facie case is found to exist.

---