Mandatory pre-summons inquiry under CrPC Section 202(1) required when accused lives outside jurisdiction; summons quashed.

Where an accused resides outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, Section 202(1) CrPC is mandatory before issuance of process. A complaint under Section 200 CrPC read with Section 50 of the Black Money Act was filed before a Magistrate at Panaji, while the accused resided in Mumbai. The record showed no compliance with Section 202(1), and the summons were issued through a cryptic cognizance order. The Bombay High Court held that the issuance of summons was unsustainable, quashed the process, and remanded the matter for fresh compliance with Section 202(1) before any summons could be issued.

---

---

Issues: Whether issuance of summons by the Magistrate without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was sustainable when the accused resided outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The complaint was lodged under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The accused was residing in Mumbai, outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate at Panaji. In such a situation, Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory before issuing process. The record did not show compliance with that requirement, and the order issuing summons was only a cryptic cognizance order.

Conclusion: The issuance of summons without compliance with Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was unsustainable and was quashed, with the matter remanded for fresh compliance before any summons could be issued.

---