JUDGMENT Heard Mr. M.M. Patil (Beedkar), the learned Counsel for the applicants. Heard Mr. S.H. Jagiasi, the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. By this Application, the applicants, who are the accused in S.T.C. No.1355/2012, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, are challenging the order issuing process against them, as passed by Magistrate on 4-5-20 12. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent herein. 4. Though a number of contentions have been raised in the Application, the substance of which is that, there were no grounds for proceeding, in the course of hearing, it was revealed that the applicants, who are the accused in the said case, are residing beyond the area in which the learned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. It also became clear that the process came to be issued against the applicants only on the basis of the statement of the respondent recorded on oath, in accordance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"]. It is now well settled that, in a case where an accused is a resident of a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate must hold an inquiry into the matter or direct an investigation to be made into it, for the purpose of deciding whether, or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. It has been held that, holding of such inquiry or directing investigation in such a case is obligatory and without holding such inquiry or considering the result of such investigation, the Magistrate cannot decide on sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds for proceeding. 5. Since, in this case, the learned Magistrate has concluded about the existence of sufficient ground for proceeding against the applicants, without holding any such inquiry or directing investigation, as is contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, the order issuing process cannot be said to be legal or proper. The same is, therefore, required to be set aside. 6. The Application is partly allowed. The order issuing process is quashed and set aside. The learned Magistrate shall hold further inquiry into the matter or direct investigation into the matter, as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, and then decide whether, or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The same is, therefore, required to be set aside. 6. The Application is partly allowed. The order issuing process is quashed and set aside. The learned Magistrate shall hold further inquiry into the matter or direct investigation into the matter, as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code, and then decide whether, or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Needless to say that, after forming an opinion in this regard, the Magistrate shall proceed further in accordance with law. 7. The Criminal Application is disposed or in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Application partly allowed.