JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:- Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( for short ‘Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of second identical complaint titled ‘Rimpi vs.Ravinder Kumar Sharma and others’ pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Amritsar (Annexure P6) along with summoning order dated 24.1.2008 (Anneuxre P8) . 2. The brief facts of the complaint, as noticed by the trial Court in para of its judgment, reads as under:- “Heard. The brief facts of the complaint are that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 18.3.1999 according to Hindu rites in pump and show and sufficient dowry articles were given to her by her parents as per their reach, but after the marriage all the accused persons in connivance with each other, humiliated the complainant and taunted her for bringing less dowry due to which they had ashamed in the society and they demanded Maruti Car and cash to the tune of Rs.2 lacs but she thought that some good sense shall prevail upon them after passage of time,but it remained continued and ultimately, she was turned out in March, 2000 when she was expecting child and on 24.4.2000 female baby took birth and all the expenses of her delivery were borne by her parents. Her parents also arranged Rs.50,000/- and given to the accused persons so their daughter may be rehabilitate in the matrimonial home. But thereafter, the accused started taunting her that she has given birth to female baby and also raised demand of Rs.1.50 lacs. In December,2003, she was again turned out by the accused persons but in Feb 2004 she was again turned out of her matrimonial home and on 18.8.2004 male baby took birth and again the expenses of her delivery were borne by her parents. She was again sent to her matrimonial home and Rs.50,000/- were again given to the accused but of no avail and she was thereafter turned out in the month of September,2005 alongwith children and since then she is residing under the care of her parents. The accused were requested to return the Istridhan of the complainant but they refused to do so. Matter was reported to the SSP and other bigwigs of the police department, but of no avail. Hence the instant complaint.” 3. The accused were requested to return the Istridhan of the complainant but they refused to do so. Matter was reported to the SSP and other bigwigs of the police department, but of no avail. Hence the instant complaint.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the amended provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate had to hold a further inquiry before summoning any person as accused who was residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercised his jurisdiction. In the present case, the Judicial Magistrate First Class had not conducted any further inquiry before passing the summoning order whereby the petitioners who were residents of Ludhiana had been ordered to be summoned. Learned counsel has placed reliance on S.K.Bhowmik vs. S.K.Arora and another 2007(4)RCR(Criminal) 650. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, has submitted that the complainant-respondent No.2 had led her preliminary evidence in support of her complaint and from the said evidence, the learned Magistrate had rightly held that there were prima facie sufficient grounds to summon all the accused for an offence under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In the present case, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint under Sections 406, 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC against the petitioners and Ravinder Kumar Sharma. Admittedly, Ravinder Kumar Sharma is facing trial under Sections 406, 498-A, 506,120-B IPC in FIR No.62 dated 1.6.2006. The said FIR was registered on the basis of statement of respondent No.2 During inquiry, petitioners-Tarsem Lal Sharma, Jitender Kumar and Narinder Kumar were found innocent and were placed in column No.2 at the time of presentation of challan. The complainant has also filed a criminal complaint in question. The said FIR was registered on the basis of statement of respondent No.2 During inquiry, petitioners-Tarsem Lal Sharma, Jitender Kumar and Narinder Kumar were found innocent and were placed in column No.2 at the time of presentation of challan. The complainant has also filed a criminal complaint in question. Amended Section 202 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “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, may, 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 an 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. (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”. Thus, as per the above provisions, it is mandatory for the Magistrate before issuing summons to the accused person, who was residing, at a place beyond the area in which the said Magistrate exercised jurisdiction to hold a further inquiry for the purpose of deciding as to whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint or not. 7. Thus, as per the above provisions, it is mandatory for the Magistrate before issuing summons to the accused person, who was residing, at a place beyond the area in which the said Magistrate exercised jurisdiction to hold a further inquiry for the purpose of deciding as to whether there were sufficient grounds for proceeding with the complaint or not. 7. A perusal of the summoning order reveals that the process has been issued without holding any inquiry or getting the complaint investigated in any manner. Process had been issued only on the basis of the statement of the complainant and Vinod Kumar, who had attended the marriage of the complainant and Rattan Lal, father of the complainant. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it cannot be sustained being in violation of the mandatory requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order for summoning the petitioners dated 24.1.2008 (Annexure P8) is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Magistrate to pass a fresh summoning order after complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. --------