JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties present before this Court, this petition is being finally disposed of. 2. Case of the petitioners is that non-petitioner No. 2 Smt. Taramani 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 cognisance of the alleged offence and further, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 200 and 202, Cr.PC., vide impugned order dated 3.3.1990 straight away took cognisance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the accused petitioner for appearance on 24.4.1990 and dates subsequent thereto. 3. The petitioner appeared before the trial court on 13.7.1990 when he was ordered to be released on bail. He filed an appreciation 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 and 202, Cr.PC. and, therefore, the impugned order taking cognisance 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 Smt. Taramani on 21.9.1990 and on the same day, it was further ordered that case be posted for hearing arguments for taking cognisance 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 Smt. Taramani has already been examined as above, let the application filed by the accused-petitioner be posted for hearing and order on 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. 5. 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) Cr.PC. 5. 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) Cr.PC. specially when the allegations in the complaint reveal commission of a non-ccgnizable offence, to be punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, since the learned Magistrate was competent to take cognisance of the offence, if any, on the basis of criminal complaint so filed in exercise of powers vested under clause (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 190 Cr.PC.; one cognisance 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 Cr.PC. 6. Section 200 of Cr.PC. prescribes that a Magistrate taking cognisance of the offence on the basis of complaint, shall examine upon both the complainant and witnesses 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 Cr.PC. further provides for postponement of the issue of summons, provided further inquiry into allegations of the complaint was sought to be necessary. However, learned Magistrate without complying with the aforesaid mandatory provisions under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.PC. embarked upon Section 204 Cr.PC. and ordered for issue of summons to accused petitioner straight away, taking cognisance 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. 7. 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. 8. Learned PP could not support the impugned order being ex-facie against the aforesaid mandatory provisions of law. 9. 8. Learned PP could not support the impugned order being ex-facie against the aforesaid mandatory provisions of law. 9. 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 Cr.PC. and passed the impugned order purporting to be under Section 204 Cr.PC. 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. 10. 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 petitioner are discharged from his bail bonds. 11. 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 XXVI of Cr.RC, including that of Section 473 Cr.PC. before proceeding to take cognisance, if so warranted after completion of the process. 12. This petition stands disposed off accordingly. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information. *******