JUDGMENT Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respondent no. and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, waive service. By consent, heard finally. 2. The petitioners are the accused nos. 2 and 3 respectively, in S.C.C. No. 4173 of 2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Aurangabad. The case is in respect of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 herein. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order issuing process as passed by the Magistrate and have approached this Hon'ble Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction. 3. Two contentions have been raised before me. The first is that since the petitioners are residents of Bangalore i.e. outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, it was incumbent on the learned Magistrate to have held an inquiry into the matter as contemplated under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") before issuing process against the petitioners and the accused no.1. It is submitted that no such inquiry was actually held by the Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 concedes that the process came to be issued against the petitioners and the accused no.1 without holding any inquiry, as contemplated under section 202 of the Code. He also does not dispute the legal position that holding of such an inquiry, is mandatory. 5. In view of this, the order issuing process needs to be set aside on this ground itself. A direction for holding an inquiry under the provisions of section 202 of the Code and to decide the question of issuance of process on the basis of such inquiry, needs to be given to the learned Magistrate. 6. The second contention raised before me is that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since now the order issuing process is being set aside by accepting the first contention as advanced by the petitioners in support of the Writ Petition, it is not necessary to go into this question for the present. What may be observed is that while holding an inquiry into the matter, as contemplated under section 202 of the Code, the Magistrate shall have to take into consideration the aspect of territorial jurisdiction also. 7. The Petition is allowed. What may be observed is that while holding an inquiry into the matter, as contemplated under section 202 of the Code, the Magistrate shall have to take into consideration the aspect of territorial jurisdiction also. 7. The Petition is allowed. The order issuing process is quashed. The learned Magistrate is directed to hold an inquiry into the matter as contemplated under section 202 of the Code and then proceed with the complaint further in accordance with law. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Petition allowed.