Returned cheque complaint not time-barred on refiling, and pre-summons examination satisfied the inquiry requirement.

A complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act filed within limitation and later returned for presentation before the proper court was treated as covered by Section 142-A, applied retrospectively, so the interval between return and refiling did not create a limitation bar. The challenge to the Magistrate's summons order also failed because the complainant's representative was examined before process was issued, which was treated as sufficient compliance with the inquiry requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revisional challenge accordingly failed, and the order issuing process was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation after return and refiling before the court having jurisdiction; (ii) whether the Magistrate's order issuing summons was vitiated for non-compliance with the inquiry requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation after return and refiling before the court having jurisdiction.

Analysis: The complaint had originally been filed within limitation. The return of the complaint for presentation before the court having territorial jurisdiction and its subsequent presentation before that court was treated as covered by Section 142-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That provision was applied retrospectively and was taken to deem such transferred matters as transferred under the Act notwithstanding contrary orders or judgments. In that view, the interval between return and refiling did not attract a limitation bar.

Conclusion: The limitation objection was rejected and the complaint was held not to be time-barred.

Issue (ii): Whether the Magistrate's order issuing summons was vitiated for non-compliance with the inquiry requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The record showed that the Magistrate examined the complainant's representative before issuing process. Such examination was treated as sufficient compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order was not found to suffer from any procedural illegality on that ground, and the summons were not held to be invalid.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure failed.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed in full, and the order issuing process was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint returned for filing before the court having jurisdiction is not rendered time-barred where Section 142-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies retrospectively, and examination of the complainant or representative before issuance of process satisfies the inquiry requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---