Section 202 inquiry in cheque dishonour cases may rest on complaint, affidavit and documents; quashing failed.

In a Section 138 prosecution, inquiry under Section 202 CrPC may be satisfied by the complaint, affidavit, documents and complainant's submissions where the accused resides outside jurisdiction; examination of witnesses on oath is not mandatory in every case. Presentation and dishonour of the cheque at a Delhi bank conferred territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi courts, so the summoning order was not vitiated on that ground. Alleged resignation from the firm and denial of responsibility for the cheque transaction raised disputed questions of fact; absent unimpeachable material, those issues could not justify quashing under Section 482 CrPC, and the complaint was permitted to proceed to trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the summoning order in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was vitiated for want of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for lack of territorial jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the petitioners, claiming to have resigned from the firm, could seek quashing of the summons on the ground that they were not responsible for the cheque transaction.

Issue (i): Whether the summoning order in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was vitiated for want of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the inquiry contemplated by Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be satisfied by consideration of the complaint, the complainant's affidavit, the documents on record, and the complainant's submissions; examination of witnesses on oath is not mandatory in every case. The cheque was presented for encashment at a bank located in Delhi and was dishonoured there, thereby conferring territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi courts.

Conclusion: The summoning order was not vitiated on either ground and the challenge to jurisdiction and Section 202 compliance failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners, claiming to have resigned from the firm, could seek quashing of the summons on the ground that they were not responsible for the cheque transaction.

Analysis: The complaint contained specific averments that the petitioners were active partners who participated in the loan transaction and the issuance of the cheque. The documents relied upon to show resignation did not constitute unimpeachable material, and the record also disclosed inconsistencies regarding the claimed retirement dates. Questions relating to the petitioners' role, responsibility, resignation, and the effect of the partnership records were matters requiring trial and could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish a ground for quashing the summoning order and the issue was decided against them.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order was rejected, and the complaint was permitted to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In a Section 138 prosecution, the Magistrate may form the necessary satisfaction under Section 202 on the basis of the complaint, affidavit, and supporting documents, and quashing under Section 482 is unwarranted unless the accused produces sterling, incontrovertible material showing that the complaint averments are untenable.

---