JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.M. Borah, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P. Choudhury for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. K. Wotsa, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1. 2. This is a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 6/2017 under Section 405/406/409/415/420 IPC read with Sections 34/120B IPC, pending before the Court of the learned CJM, Dimapur. 3. The petitioners have challenged the impugned Order dated 12.06.2017 issued by the learned CJM, Dimapur, by which cognizance of the offence has been taken and summons have been issued to the petitioners. The petitioner's counsel submits that as per Section 200 Cr.P.C, the examination of the complainant was to be reduced into writing and the same was to be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, if any and also by the Magistrate recording the statement. He submits that a perusal of the statement recorded by the CJM, Dimapur shows that neither the complainant or the CJM had appended their signature to the statement recorded by the learned CJM. 4. The other preliminary objection taken by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners with regard to the impugned Order dated 12.6.2017 is that the petitioners are all residing outside the jurisdiction of the concerned CJM, Dimapur. As such, Section 202 Cr.P.C. required the learned CJM, Dimapur to cause an enquiry into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such person as the Court thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. He submits that a perusal of the impugned Order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the learned CJM would go to show that cognizance had been taken without following the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. 5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 407 and in the case of K.T. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 199 . 6. The learned counsels for the respondents fairly submit that Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with by the concerned Magistrate. 7. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 407 and in the case of K.T. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 199 . 6. The learned counsels for the respondents fairly submit that Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have not been complied with by the concerned Magistrate. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. A perusal of the records show that no signatures of the complainant and the concerned Magistrate have been appended to the statement given by the complainant Also there is nothing reflected in the impugned Order dated 12.06.2017, which shows that the learned CJM had caused any enquiry into the case himself or directed an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thought fit, before issuing summons, as required under the amended Section 202 Cr.P.C. 9. In the case of National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors (supra), the Apex Court has held that Section 200 Cr.P.C. is mandatory and that when a complaint is made in writing, Section 200 Cr.P.C. requires that the Magistrate, shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate. 10. In the case of K.T. Joseph Vs. State of Kerala & Anr (supra), the Apex Court has held that an enquiry has to be conducted before the issue of process is undertaken under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 11. In the case of National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz & Anr. reported in 2013 2 SCC 488 , the Apex Court has held at para 9 & 10 as follows:- "9. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.P.C. and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by criminal Court. The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not. The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not. Investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: (i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. 10. Section 202 Cr.P.C. was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted: "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the exercises his jurisdiction." The notes on clauses for the abovementioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused." It also held that if Section 202 Cr.P.C. is not followed, the High Court, instead of quashing the complaint, should have directed the Magistrate to pass fresh orders following the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Apex Court had remitted the matter to the Magistrate for passing fresh orders. 12. 12. In the present case, there is nothing discernible in the impugned Order dated 12.06.2017, showing that the Magistrate had enquired into the case himself or directed an investigation to be made by a police officer or by any other person, as required under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, as there has been non compliance with the provisions of Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. as stated above, this Court is of the view that impugned Order dated 12.06.2017 is unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned Court of the CJM, Dimapur, who shall examine the complaint and witnesses, if any and follow the procedure prescribed under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, before he comes to a decision that any further process has to be followed as per law. 13. The complainant shall appear before the Court of the learned CJM, Dimapur on 5.4.2019. 14. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed. Send back the LCRs.