Mandatory pre-summoning inquiry under section 202 CrPC applies in cheque dishonour complaints against accused outside jurisdiction.

Where an accused in a section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, the amended section 202 CrPC requires a mandatory pre-summoning inquiry before process is issued. The summary procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act and affidavit evidence under sections 145 and 146 do not displace this safeguard, which also tests whether sufficient material exists to justify process. The High Court further noted that the existence of a revision remedy does not automatically bar writ jurisdiction where direct interference is otherwise warranted. On that basis, the process orders and connected revisional orders were set aside and the matter was remitted for compliance with section 202.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended requirement under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory before issuing process in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the writ proceedings were maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the amended requirement under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory before issuing process in a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction.

Analysis: The amended provision was read as having been enacted to curb harassment through complaints against persons residing at far-off places. The Court held that, after the 2005 amendment, the Magistrate must postpone issuance of process and conduct the inquiry contemplated by section 202 where the accused resides beyond jurisdiction. The Court further held that the summary procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not override this pre-summoning safeguard, and that affidavit-based evidence under sections 145 and 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not dispense with the inquiry required by section 202. The Court treated the inquiry as directed not only to territorial jurisdiction but also to whether sufficient material exists to justify issuance of process.

Conclusion: The amended section 202 is mandatory, and process could not be issued without compliance; the orders issuing process were liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ proceedings were maintainable despite the availability of a revision remedy.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that availability of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court's jurisdiction where the matter is brought directly before it and interference is otherwise justified. It relied on the settled view that such proceedings need not be dismissed merely because a revision lies under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The proceedings were maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded, the process orders and the connected revisional orders were set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before considering issue of process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, the amended pre-summoning inquiry under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory even in complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---