Mandatory Section 202 inquiry before summons where accused live outside jurisdiction; omission justified quashing and remand.

Section 202(1) CrPC is mandatory where any accused resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, and process should not issue without the required inquiry or postponement of summons. Examination of the complainant under Section 200 does not, by itself, satisfy Section 202(1) unless that distinct inquiry is actually undertaken. On the facts, no substantial compliance was shown, the belated objection did not cure the defect, and the omission was treated as causing failure of justice. The order quashing the summons and remitting the complaint to the Magistrate from the Section 202 stage was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a complaint where some accused reside beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, vitiated the order issuing summons and justified remand.

Analysis: The requirement under Section 202(1) is mandatory when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, as the provision uses the word "shall" and was inserted to ensure due scrutiny before process is issued. Earlier examination of the complainant under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, does not by itself amount to compliance unless the inquiry contemplated by Section 202(1) is actually undertaken. On the facts, even substantial compliance was not established, and the belated objection did not cure the jurisdictional defect. Since the complaint had proceeded without the mandatory inquiry, the error was treated as causing failure of justice.

Conclusion: The order quashing the summons and remanding the complaint to the Magistrate from the stage of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was upheld; the challenge was rejected.

---