JUDGMENT Heard Mr. B.A. Dhengle, the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Heard Mr. P.P. More, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent no.1. None appears for the respondent no.2, inspite of notice indicating that the petition might be decided finally at the admission stage itself. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The petitioners are the accused in Summary Criminal Case No. 30/2012, pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad. The said case arises on a complaint filed by the respondent no.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as "complainant"), alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the IPC, 323 of the IPC, 504 of the IPC, 506 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC. After examining the complainant on oath, as contemplated under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short, "the Code"], the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process against the petitioners, requiring them to appear and answer to the charge of offences punishable under Sections 323 of the IPC, 504 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the order issuing process, the petitioners had approached the Court of Sessions in revision. But the revision application came to be dismissed. The petitioners have now approached this Court invoking its constitutional jurisdiction and praying that, by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 4-1-2012, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, issuing process against them, be quashed and set aside. 4. Though a number of contentions have been taken in the petition, the substance of which is that the complaint is false, in the course of oral hearing, only one contention was pressed. It is, that, admittedly, the petitioners are residing at places beyond the area in which the learned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. It is submitted that, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Section 202 of the Code, as amended by Section 19 of Act 25 of 2005, the learned Magistrate ought to have held an inquiry into the matter or ought to have directed an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or any other person, before deciding whether, or not, there was sufficient ground for proceeding. 5. 5. Indeed, it is clear that, the process came to be issued by the learned Magistrate on examination of the complainant and no other witnesses were required to be produced by the complainant. It has been held by this Court and also by the Apex Court that, the provisions requiring a Magistrate to hold an inquiry or direct an investigation for deciding whether, or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, in case of an accused residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, are mandatory. It has been held that the process issued without complying with the relevant provision would be contrary to law. In view of this, the petition succeeds. 6. The petition is allowed. The order issuing process is quashed. The learned Magistrate shall hold further inquiry into the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 202 of the Code, and then decide whether, or not, there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners, or any of them. 7. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Petition allowed.