JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties present before this Court, this petition in being finally disposed of. 2. Case of the petitioners is the non-petitioner No. 2 Radha Krishna filed a criminal complaint before the trial Court for alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Ganganagar subsequent thereto, without first applying his judicial mind to allegations under the complaint, proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged offence and further, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sections 200 & 202, Criminal Procedure Code, vide impugned Order dated 3.3.1990 straightaway took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the accused petitioner for appearance on 4.4.1990 and dates subsequent thereto. 3. The petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 31.5.1990 when he was ordered to be released on bail. He filed an application before the trial Court challenging the impugned order dated 3.3.1990 on the ground that there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of Sections 200 & 202, Criminal Procedure Code and, therefore, the impugned order taking cognizance of the alleged offence was as such, vitiated and was liable to be set aside and all proceedings consequent thereto deserved to be dropped. However, consequent upon filing of this application, learned trial Magistrate proceeded to examine the complainant non-petitioner No. 2 Radha Krishna on 21.9.1990 and on the same day, it was further ordered that case be posted for hearing arguments for taking cognizance of the offence, if any, on 24.10.1990. No substantial progress could be made on 24.10.1990 in the first instance. However, in an additional order-sheet of the same date it was ordered that since the complainant - Radha Krishna has already been examined as above, let the application filed be the accused-petitioner be posted for hearing and order 17.12.1990. 4. No substantial progress could be made on 24.10.1990 in the first instance. However, in an additional order-sheet of the same date it was ordered that since the complainant - Radha Krishna has already been examined as above, let the application filed be the accused-petitioner be posted for hearing and order 17.12.1990. 4. Meanwhile, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner before any final order disposing of the application moved by the accused petitioner be passed, this revision petition was preferred, and a stay order was passed on 13.7.1990 and thereafter, no further proceedings could be taken by the trial Court.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as soon as a criminal complaint was lodged before the trial Court and the learned Magistrate did not find any case for forwarding the same under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code specially when the allegations in the complaint reveal commission of a non-cognizable offence, to be punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the learned Magistrate was competent to take cognizance of the offence, if any, on the basis of criminal complaint so filed in exercise of powers vested under Clause (a) sub-section (1) of Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code; once cognizance of such an offence after application of judicial mind was taken, the only course left thereafter was to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code. 5. Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of a complaint, shall examine upon both the complainant and witness and substance of such examination should be reduced in writing and shall be signed by the witnesses and the complainant. However, the provisos following thereto will not apply in the instant case. Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code further provides for postponement of the issue of summons, provided further, inquiry into allegations of the complaint was sought to necessary. However, the provisos following thereto will not apply in the instant case. Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code further provides for postponement of the issue of summons, provided further, inquiry into allegations of the complaint was sought to necessary. However, learned Magistrate without complying with the aforesaid mandatory provisions under Sections 200 & 202 Criminal Procedure Code embarked upon Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code and ordered for issue of summons to accused-petitioner straightaway, taking cognizance of the alleged offence, which is illegal and without jurisdiction in absence of compliance of aforesaid mandatory provisions, resulting into vitiating the impugned order dated 3.3.1990, in compliance of which the accused petitioner was compelled to appear before the trial Court and get himself bailed out, as above. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is, therefore, that the impugned order dated 3.3.1990 is wholly without sanctity of law and is liable to be quashed and merely because complainant was subsequently examined on filing of protest application accused-petitioner, it does not validate the impugned order. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor could not support the impugned order being ex-facie against the aforesaid mandatory provisions of law. 8. Undisputedly, learned Magistrate on filing of the complaint straight-away proceeded to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint, without complying with the aforesaid mandatory provisions of Chapter XV of Code of Criminal Procedure, specially in absence of compliance of Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code and passed the impugned order, purporting to be under Section 204 Criminal Procedure Code There is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned order is illegal and as such, order of summoning the accused-petitioner to appear before the trial Court is vitiated, warranting setting aside the same. 9. Consequently, this petition, being well merited deserves to be accepted, and is accepted. The order dated 3.3.1990 and proceedings consequent thereto are quashed and set aside. Therefore, the accused petitioners are discharged from his bail bonds. 10. Learned Magistrate shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter afresh, in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Chapter XV as also keeping in view the provisions under Chapter XXXVI of Criminal Procedure Code, including that of Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code before proceeding to take cognizance, if so warranted after completion of the process. 11. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. 12. 11. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. 12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.Petition disposed of. *******