JUDGMENT: ARUNABHA BASU, J. (1) THE revisional application under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 10.4.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sealdah in connection with Complaint Case No. C-148 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below postponed the issuance of process and directed Officer-in-Charge of Entally Police Station to investigate in terms of provision under sub-section (1) of section 202 of the Code of Criminal procedure. (2) THE main contention of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate while passing the aforesaid order only took into consideration the subsequent amendment which came into force with effect from 23rd June, 2006 without considering the entire scope of section 202 in its proper perspective. (3) SECTION 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows: "202. Postponement of issue of process.- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, if he thinks fit, (and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction,) postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an Officer-in-Charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant. " (4) SECTION 202 will come into force only in cases where the Magistrate postpones the issuance of process. The amendment of section 202 which came into force on 22nd June, 2006 specifically provides, and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction. Even though the word shall does not necessarily mean that the same is mandatory in nature. But so far as the language of section 202 is concerned, the provision as framed by the legislature, has given discretion to the Magistrate that in the given circumstances of a particular case, the learned Magistrate is empowered to postpone issue of process and in that contingency either he may inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by the police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. Such exercise as mentioned in the said section, will be primarily for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Now the word shall specifically stipulates that the same will be applicable only in cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. Such exercise as mentioned in the said section, will be primarily for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Now the word shall specifically stipulates that the same will be applicable only in cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. So the combined reading of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as originally framed by the legislature and subsequently incorporated by way of amendment would be that generally the application of section 202 will be at the discretion of the Magistrate only in cases where the learned Magistrate after recording the evidence in terms of section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not in a position to decide either to dismiss the complaint in terms of section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or to issue process in terms of section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (5) SECTION 202 gives discretion to the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process and so far as the present case is concerned, such discretion is already exercised by the learned Magistrate by his impugned order under challenge. (6) A careful perusal of the said order dated 10.4.2007 passed by the learned magistrate will show that learned Magistrate took into consideration that the accused is residing at a place which is outside the jurisdiction of the said court and is of the view that in terms of amendment of section 202 as mentioned above, he is required to issue such direction and directed investigation by Officer-in-Charge of the Entally Police Station. (7) IT is evident from the recital of the revisional application that the residence of the accused being outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court is not in dispute. The revisional application is directed only questioning the propriety of the said order, But in my view when the learned Magistrate has. exercised his jurisdiction vested under section 202 of the Code of Criminal procedure and when in the order under challenge, there is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate while passing the said order then the revisional Court will be slow to interfere particularly when the learned magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction within the framework of law. exercised his jurisdiction vested under section 202 of the Code of Criminal procedure and when in the order under challenge, there is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate while passing the said order then the revisional Court will be slow to interfere particularly when the learned magistrate has exercised his jurisdiction within the framework of law. At this stage, it is not open to the Revisional Court to interfere into the order passed by the learned Magistrate as the same cannot be faulted either on consideration of the facts in connection with the case or also on point of law involved in the matter. This being the position, the revisional application is devoid of any merit and stands dismissed. (8) HOWEVER, before parting with the discussion, I must point out that in this case the petitioner has not impleaded, the alleged accused mentioned in the petition of complaint as opposite party No. 2 in connection with the revisional matter, the private opposite party has a right of hearing and should have been impleaded. However, as the revisional application is dismissed, the non-impeadment of the accused as opposite party will be hardly material for the purpose of deciding in the present revisional application. (9) INTERIM order of stay granted earlier stands vacated. (10) CRIMINAL Section is directed to forward a copy of the order to the learned Court below as urgently as possible. (11) CRIMINAL Section is also directed to supply urgent certified copy of the order as and when applied for, Revisional application dismissed.