Mandatory Section 202 inquiry applies before process when the accused lives outside jurisdiction in cheque-dishonour complaints.

Amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, requiring the Magistrate to postpone process and conduct an inquiry or direct investigation before issuing process under Section 204. The inquiry is limited to deciding whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed, and compliance is satisfied where the Magistrate properly applies mind to the complaint, affidavit, documents, and other materials. In complaints under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, affidavit evidence is permissible, and a complaint supported by affidavit from a public servant may be examined on that basis. On the materials considered, Section 202 was not violated and the proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate before issuance of process under Section 204 of that Code. (ii) Whether Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 supported by affidavit from a public servant.

Issue (i): Whether the amended Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate before issuance of process under Section 204 of that Code.

Analysis: The amended text of Section 202 introduces the word "shall" for cases where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial limits. The provision is aimed at preventing harassment through false complaints and requires the Magistrate to postpone issuance of process and either inquire into the case or direct investigation. The decision further notes that the inquiry stage is limited to determining whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding, and that the Magistrate must apply mind to the complaint, affidavit, documents, and materials before issuing process.

Conclusion: The requirement of inquiry under the amended Section 202 is mandatory where the accused resides beyond jurisdiction, but compliance can be satisfied by a proper judicial inquiry based on the materials placed before the Magistrate.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 supported by affidavit from a public servant.

Analysis: The decision applies the later Supreme Court position that in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, affidavit evidence under Section 145 is permissible and the Magistrate may assess sufficiency of grounds on the basis of the complaint, affidavit, documents, and other materials. Where the complainant is a public servant acting in discharge of official duties, the complaint supported by affidavit and the material already examined by the Magistrate may satisfy the requirements of inquiry. The order records that the Magistrate had perused the complaint, affidavit, original documents, and submissions, and had already found sufficient grounds for proceeding.

Conclusion: Section 202 was not violated in the facts of the case, and the complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was validly proceeded with on the basis of the materials considered by the Magistrate.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, the concurrent orders below were upheld, and the proceedings were not interfered with.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque-dishonour complaint, the Magistrate must apply mind to the complaint and supporting materials, and the mandatory inquiry under amended Section 202 is satisfied where the Magistrate properly examines the available materials to decide whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against an accused residing beyond jurisdiction.

---