Mandatory pre-process inquiry under Section 202 CrPC applies to distant accused, but cheque dishonour complaints form a special exception.

Section 202 CrPC requires a Magistrate, before issuing process against an accused residing beyond territorial jurisdiction, to postpone process and either inquire or direct investigation. The inquiry is a limited pre-process scrutiny to see whether sufficient ground exists to proceed, based on the complainant's materials, witness examination, or investigation, without accused participation. Non-compliance may invalidate the process order, and objections should ordinarily be raised at the earliest stage. In cheque dishonour prosecutions under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, however, the special procedural scheme was treated as displacing the mandatory Section 202 inquiry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 casts a mandatory duty on the Magistrate to postpone issuance of process and hold an inquiry or direct investigation where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction; (ii) What is the nature and scope of the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) Whether non-compliance with the amended Section 202 vitiates the order issuing process and whether the objection can be raised at a later stage; (iv) Whether the amended Section 202 applies to prosecutions under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 casts a mandatory duty on the Magistrate to postpone issuance of process and hold an inquiry or direct investigation where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The amendment inserting the word "shall" was introduced to protect persons residing at far-off places from false complaints and unnecessary harassment. The settled construction rule that where a statute prescribes a mode, it must be followed in that manner applies here. The amended provision was read in the light of the legislative purpose and the binding precedents holding that the Magistrate must first inquire or direct investigation before issuing process in such cases.

Conclusion: The amended Section 202 is mandatory in cases where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Issue (ii): What is the nature and scope of the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The inquiry is a pre-process scrutiny, distinct from trial, intended to ascertain whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. It is limited to the materials placed by the complainant and may include examination of witnesses or an investigation directed by the Magistrate. The accused has no participatory role at this stage, and the Magistrate must assess whether the complaint discloses a prima facie basis for process.

Conclusion: The inquiry is limited to finding out whether sufficient ground exists for proceeding and may be conducted by examining witnesses or by directing investigation.

Issue (iii): Whether non-compliance with the amended Section 202 vitiates the order issuing process and whether the objection can be raised at a later stage.

Analysis: Issuance of process without the required inquiry is an irregularity going to the legality of the order and the proper course is to seek correction under the revisional/inherent jurisdiction. At the same time, objections of this kind should be raised at the earliest stage because technical objections not raised promptly may not be entertained after the trial has substantially progressed.

Conclusion: Non-compliance may vitiate the process order, but the objection should ordinarily be raised at the earliest stage and not after substantial progress in the trial.

Issue (iv): Whether the amended Section 202 applies to prosecutions under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The Negotiable Instruments Act contains a special procedural scheme with non obstante clauses, summary-trial orientation, affidavit evidence, statutory presumptions, and a restricted cognizance framework. In this special regime, the legislative design differs from the ordinary criminal process, and the requirement of Section 202 inquiry before issuance of summons was held not to apply mandatorily to complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141.

Conclusion: In prosecutions under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the amended Section 202 is not mandatorily required before issuing summons to an residing outside jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by laying down the general rule of mandatory inquiry under Section 202, the limited nature of that inquiry, the consequences of non-compliance, the need for timely objection, and the special exception for cheque-bounce prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The matters were sent back for decision on their merits in light of these principles.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Code requires a Magistrate to act in a specified manner before issuing process to an accused residing beyond jurisdiction, that procedure is mandatory in ordinary complaints, but a special statutory scheme with overriding non obstante clauses may displace that requirement.

---