Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 470 (GAU)

Pooja Paul Choudhury v. Arnab Saha

2020-05-12

AJAI LAMBA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The Court proceedings have been conducted by means of creating a Virtual Court with the help of technology, so as to maintain distance between the staff, Advocates and the Presiding Judge. 2. I have heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I.A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing of order dated 14th December, 2017 rendered by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kokrajhar, in C.R. Case No.1303C of 2017, taking cognizance of offence under Section 420 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. The petition also seeks quashing of order dated 8th October, 2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar while dealing with Criminal Revision Petition No.2 of 2018. Vide the order dated 8th October, 2018, the revision petition has been dismissed and consequently order dated 14 th December, 2017 (supra) has been upheld. 4. It appears that Criminal Complaint Case No.1303 C of 2017, titled Arnab Saha Vs. Ms. Pooja Paul Choudhury and two others was filed. As per the contents of the complaint and the memo of parties itself, it become evident that while the complainant is resident of District Kokrajhar and the complaint was filed with the territorial jurisdiction of that District, the three accused named in the criminal complaint are residents of Dhubri, another District of Assam. It is further evident that Ms. Pooja Paul Choudhury is daughter of the other two accused, namely, Sri Dilip Paul Choudhury and Smti. Silpi Paul Choudhury. 5. Gist of the issue pleaded vide the complaint and the legal issue raised by virtue of this petition are recorded in order dated 30 th January, 2020. For brevity sake, the said order is extracted herein below : " Smti. Pooja Paul Choudhury has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for quashing order dated 14.12.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kokrajhar in C.R. Case No.1303c/2017, and consequent proceedings. The petition also challenges order dated 08.10.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar while dealing with Criminal Revision No.02/2018. 2. It appears that the respondent/complainant made accusation against the petitioner/accused vide the complaint dated 15.12.2015 to the effect that he met the accused at a marriage function. Subsequently, the relationship developed into a love affair. The petitioner/accused made a proposal for marriage. 2. It appears that the respondent/complainant made accusation against the petitioner/accused vide the complaint dated 15.12.2015 to the effect that he met the accused at a marriage function. Subsequently, the relationship developed into a love affair. The petitioner/accused made a proposal for marriage. Since the respondent/complainant was in love, she obtained sympathy and requested the complainant to advance some money so that she could take care of her financial problems for her education and other needs. It was alleged that the complainant has medicine wholesale business and, therefore, sufficient resources. Money was lent to the petitioner/accused on several occasions including by bank transfers to her account. 3. The details and bank account number have been given in the complaint. The total amount lend is in a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- till 14.09.2018, out of which Rs. 8,000/- was lent in cash, remaining through bank account transfers. In a nutshell, it has been pleaded that the complainant was induced on parting of the money on the pretext that the accused would get married to the complainant, however, subsequently she stopped talking to the complainant. He was blocked from making calls. The complainant approached the accused and her parents, however, she denied having taken any loan. So much so she even denied having been in a relationship with the complainant. 4. While dealing with the complaint, the Magistrate having jurisdiction, recorded the statement of the complainant filed with this petition as Annexure- B. The Magistrate, in exercise of his jurisdiction and on consideration of the materials before him, summoned the petitioner/accused vide the impugned order dated 14.12.2017. 5. Having gone through the complaint, it stands established that the petitioner/accused was not residing at a place over which the Judicial Magistrate had jurisdiction and, therefore, the Magistrate was required to follow the procedure as laid down under Section 202(1) of the Cr.PC. 6. The petitioner/accused being aggrieved thereby preferred a revision petition. The revision petition has been dismissed vide the other impugned order dated 08.10.2018. 7. Essentially, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner/accused that in terms of Section 202(1)(b) of the Cr.PC, all the witnesses were required to be examined before summoning the accused, for the reasons that the accused was not living within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence. 8. 7. Essentially, it was pleaded on behalf of the petitioner/accused that in terms of Section 202(1)(b) of the Cr.PC, all the witnesses were required to be examined before summoning the accused, for the reasons that the accused was not living within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offence. 8. The Revisional Court has taken judicial notice of the law as declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivjee Singh -Vs- Nagendra Tiwary & Ors., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 578 to hold that Section 202(2) of the Cr.PC did not inhere specifically that all the witnesses cited by the complainant need to be examined. Satisfaction is required to be recorded by the Magistrate and this could be done even without examining all the witnesses. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has vehemently argued that the judgment rendered in Shivjee Singh (supra) would have no application on the facts and circumstances of the case, firstly for the reason that the complaint and proceedings, which was subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was in regard to a sessions triable case. Under the circumstances, different procedures was required to be followed, as provided under proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 202 of the Cr.PC. On the second count, it has been argued that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shivjee Singh (supra) would have no application because in that case, there is nothing to indicate that the accused was living outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. 10. Learned counsel has relied on subsequent judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Udai Shankar Awasthi -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2013) 2 SCC 435 (Paragraph 40) and Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. -Vs- Najima Mamtaj & Ors., reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638 . 11. Learned counsel for the complainant is not available in Court. Let communication be sent to the counsel. 12. It is made clear that in case learned counsel for the respondents does not appear on the next date of listing, the case would be dealt with and decided on the basis of available materials. 13. List on 03.02.2020 (post-lunch) high-up on the list." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the mandatory procedure provided under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the Magistrate concerned. 13. List on 03.02.2020 (post-lunch) high-up on the list." 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the mandatory procedure provided under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been followed by the Magistrate concerned. It has been pleaded that evidently and admittedly the accused in the complaint are residing at a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and yet without inquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C. process has been issued against the petitioner. On the second count, it has been argued that although in the criminal complaint as many as four(4) witnesses have been cited, however, they were not examined. Only the complainant was examined on oath in support of the accusations in the complaint. It has been asserted that it was incumbent on the Magistrate in terms of mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C. to have examined all the witnesses. Therefore, also mandatory procedure provided has been violated and, therefore, the petition be allowed. 7. In context of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, I have referred to order passed by the Magistrate dated 14th December, 2017 (Annexure-C). Order dated 14th December, 2017 reads as under :- "Complainant is present and his initial deposition is recorded U/S 200 of CrPC. Heard the Complainant and also perused the complaint and document submitted therewith. On the basis of the facts alleged in the complaint, the documents submitted and initial deposition of the complainant, I find sufficient grounds for proceedings u/s 420 of IPC against the accused Miss Pooja Paul Choudhury. Accordingly, I take cognizance u/s 420 of IPC against the accused Miss Pooja Paul Choudhury. Issue summons to the accused. Complainant to take steps. Fix 10/01/2018 for appearance." 8. Being agitated against the above extracted impugned order, revision was preferred before the Court of Sessions at Kokrajhar, which has been dismissed vide order dated 8 th October, 2018 (Annexure-H). The Revisional Court vide the impugned order (Annexure-H) dated 8 th October, 2018, while relying on 2010 Crl. L.J. 3827, (Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Others) rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the Magistrate took cognizance of the case finding sufficient ground for proceeding under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, cognizance of the offence has been taken and the process has been issued. L.J. 3827, (Shivjee Singh Vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Others) rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the Magistrate took cognizance of the case finding sufficient ground for proceeding under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Consequently, cognizance of the offence has been taken and the process has been issued. On merits, it has been held that considering the contents of the complaint, statement of the complainant and the evidence brought on record by way of pleaders notice, reply, bank slips, etc., prima facie, it has been shown that offence has been committed and, therefore, order passed by the Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality, and impropriety. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances, as noticed above, and the impugned order, I would like to refer to the relevant portion from judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shivjee Singh's case (supra) (Para 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 30) : 16. The object of examining the complainant and the witnesses is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint and determine whether there is a prima facie case against the person who, according to the complainant has committed an offence. If upon examination of the complainant and/or witnesses, the Magistrate is prima facie satisfied that a case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence then he is required to issue process. 17. Section 202 empowers the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or such other person as he may think fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Under Section 203, the Magistrate can dismiss the complaint if, after taking into consideration the statements of the complainant and his witnesses and the result of the inquiry/investigation, if any, done under Section 202, he is of the view that there does not exist sufficient ground for proceeding. On the other hand, Section 204 provides for issue of process if the Magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground for doing so. 18. The expression "sufficient ground" used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. 18. The expression "sufficient ground" used in Sections 203, 204 and 209 means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purpose of conviction. This interpretation of the provisions contained in Chapters XV and XVI CrPC finds adequate support from the judgments of this Court in Ramgopal Ganpatrai Ruia v. State of Bombay [ AIR 1958 SC 97 : 1958 Cri LJ 244 : 1958 SCR 618 ] , Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadigaonkar [ AIR 1960 SC 1113 : 1960 Cri LJ 1499 : (1961) 1 SCR 1 ] , Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash ChandraBose [ AIR 1963 SC 1430 : (1963) 2 Cri LJ 397 : (1964) 1 SCR 639 ] , Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B. [ (1973) 3 SCC 753 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 521] , Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan [1980 Supp SCC 499 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 438] , Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh [ (1992) 2 SCC 213 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 361] and Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [ (2008) 2 SCC 492 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 471] X X X X X X X 21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh [ (1992) 2 SCC 213 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 361] in the following words: (SCC p. 217, para 11) "11. ... The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full-dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full-dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusation made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry." (emphasis supplied) 22. The use of the word "shall" in the proviso to Section 202(2) is prima facie indicative of mandatory character of the provision contained therein, but a close and critical analysis thereof along with other provisions contained in Chapter XV and Sections 226 and 227 and Section 465 would clearly show that non-examination on oath of any or some of the witnesses cited by the complainant is, by itself, not sufficient to denude the Magistrate concerned of the jurisdiction to pass an order for taking cognizance and issue of process provided he is satisfied that prima facie case is made out for doing so. Here it is significant to note that the word "all" appearing in the proviso to Section 202(2) is qualified by the word "his". This implies that the complainant is not bound to examine all the witnesses named in the complaint or whose names are disclosed in response to the order passed by the Magistrate. In other words, only those witnesses are required to be examined whom the complainant considers material to make out a prima facie case for issue of process. 23. The choice being of the complainant, he may choose not to examine other witnesses. In other words, only those witnesses are required to be examined whom the complainant considers material to make out a prima facie case for issue of process. 23. The choice being of the complainant, he may choose not to examine other witnesses. Consequence of such non-examination is to be considered at the trial and not at the stage of issuing process when the Magistrate is not required to enter into detailed discussions on the merits or demerits of the case, that is to say, whether or not the allegations contained in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. He is only to see whether there exists sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. X X X X X X X 30. Although, Shah, J. and Thomas, J. appear to have expressed divergent views on the interpretation of proviso to Section 202(2) but there is no discord between them that non-examination of all the witnesses by the complainant would not vitiate the proceedings. With a view to clarify legal position on the subject, we deem it proper to observe that even though in terms of the proviso to Section 202(2), the Magistrate is required to direct the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath, failure or inability of the complainant or omission on his part to examine one or some of the witnesses cited in the complaint or whose names are furnished in compliance with the direction issued by the Magistrate, will not preclude the latter from taking cognizance and issuing process or passing committal order if he is satisfied that there exists sufficient ground for doing so. Such an order passed by the Magistrate cannot be nullified only on the ground of non-compliance with the proviso to Section 202(2). (Emphasised by me) 10. I would also like to refer to judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on related issue in Vijay Dhanuka and others -Vs.- Najima Mamtaj and others , reported as (2014) 14 SCC 638 . In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has relied on/referred to an earlier judgment rendered in Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 43 . In the Vijay Dhanuka's case (supra), the following has been held (relevant portion only) : "10. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has relied on/referred to an earlier judgment rendered in Udai Shankar Awasthi Vs. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 43 . In the Vijay Dhanuka's case (supra), the following has been held (relevant portion only) : "10. However, in a case in which the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction whether it would be mandatory to hold inquiry or the investigation as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding, is the question which needs our determination. In this connection, it is apt to refer to Section 202 of the Code which provides for postponement of issue of process. The same reads as follows: "202.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 and 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. (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." (emphasis supplied) 11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process "in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction" and thereafter to either inquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not. 12. The words "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction" were inserted by Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. The note for the amendment reads as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. The note for the amendment reads 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." The use of the expression "shall" prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word "shall" is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word "shall" in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression "shall" and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. 13. In view of the decision of this Court in Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. [ (2013) 2 SCC 435 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1121 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 708] , this point need not detain us any further as in the said case, this Court has clearly held that the provision aforesaid is mandatory. It is apt to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment: (SCC p. 449, para 40) "40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 CrPC, though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. It is apt to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment: (SCC p. 449, para 40) "40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 CrPC, though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 CrPC were amended vide the Amendment Act, 2005, making it mandatory to postpone the issue of process where the accused resides in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. The same was found necessary in order to protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons and making it obligatory upon the Magistrate to enquire into the case himself, or to direct investigation to be made by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of finding out whether or not, there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused before issuing summons in such cases." (emphasis supplied) 14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word "inquiry" has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Code, the same reads as follows: "2. (g) 'inquiry' means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court;" It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code. 15. In the present case, as we have stated earlier, the Magistrate has examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses and only thereafter he had directed for issuance of process. 16. In view of what we have observed above, we do not find any error in the order impugned. 15. In the present case, as we have stated earlier, the Magistrate has examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses and only thereafter he had directed for issuance of process. 16. In view of what we have observed above, we do not find any error in the order impugned. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly." 11. I have also referred to judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Udai Shankar Awasthi's case (supra). Rather in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has referred to Shivjee Singh's case (supra) in para-14 thereof. 12. Having considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as referred to above, it becomes evident that the object of examining the complainant and the witnesses in the course of "inquiry" is to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the complaint and determine whether there is prima facie case against the person, who according to the complainant has committed the offence. It can be clearly deciphered from the judgments, portion whereof has been extracted above, that if upon examination of the complainant or the witnesses, the Magistrate is prima facie is satisfied that a case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence, then he is required to issue process [vide para-16 of Shivjee Singh's case (supra)]. It has been held that Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process and either inquire into causes himself, or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or such other person, as he may think fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. It has been held that 'sufficient ground' means the satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out against the person accused of committing an offence and not sufficient ground for the purposes of conviction. It has been held that it would be choice of the complainant, he may choose not to examine other witnesses. It has been clarified that non-examination of all the witnesses by the complainant would not vitiate the proceedings. It has been held that it would be choice of the complainant, he may choose not to examine other witnesses. It has been clarified that non-examination of all the witnesses by the complainant would not vitiate the proceedings. Failure or inability of the complainant or omission on his part to examine one or some of the witnesses cited in the complaint, will not preclude the Magistrate from taking cognizance and issuing process asking the accused to stand trial [vide para-30 of Shivjee Singh's case (supra)]. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or the Court is an 'inquiry'. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry, envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the witnesses are examined, whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code [vide para-14 of Vijay Dhanuka's case (supra)]. 14. I have also considered the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The provision requires the Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence, in case the accused is residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of his Court, to postpone issue of process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person he may think fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Sub-section (2) of Section 202 of the Code provides that in an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath. Reading of provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cumulatively, leave no manner of doubt that in cases such as one under adjudication, process cannot be issued without ' inquiry', as envisaged/defined by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vijay Dhanuka's case (supra). Reading of provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cumulatively, leave no manner of doubt that in cases such as one under adjudication, process cannot be issued without ' inquiry', as envisaged/defined by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vijay Dhanuka's case (supra). Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure inheres that in the course of 'inquiry' under Section 202(1), "the Magistrate 'may', if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath". Thus, the provision leaves it to the discretion of the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to lead more evidence in the course of inquiry being conducted by him, in case he finds insufficient material to issue process against the accused. In such circumstances, the provisions of Section 202 (1) & (2) cannot be read to mean that it is incumbent on the complainant to examine all the witnesses cited in the complaint. 15. In the case in hand, since the accused were residents of a place outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, process against the accused was not issued forthwith on receipt of the complaint. Rather, the Magistrate enquired into the case himself by way of examining contents of the complaint, the documents mentioned in the complaint and appended thereto, and the statement of the complainant taken on oath in Court. Thus, it is evident that on the basis of such 'inquiry', the Magistrate found sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In the given circumstances, I find no ground to conclude that ingredients of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied. 16. Applying the ratio of law to the facts of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant examined himself, and also produced before the Magistrate documentary evidence by way of legal notice, reply to legal notice, bankers' slip etc. On consideration of such contents of complaint, statement of the complainant and documents in the inquiry proceedings under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate found sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused/petitioner herein. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in context of the law, as discussed above, I find no merit in the first contention of the counsel. 17. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in context of the law, as discussed above, I find no merit in the first contention of the counsel. Indeed, inquiry as required under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was conducted by the Magistrate and, thereafter, vide impugned order dated 14.12.2017, the petitioner/accused has been summoned to stand trial. Second contention of learned counsel also cannot be accepted as a good ground to allow this petition. In interpretation of provisions of Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it cannot be held that the complainant was required to examine all the four witnesses cited in the complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in interpretation of mandate of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has made this aspect of the matter clear. Also a plain reading of Section 202(2) makes it clear that in the given circumstances the Magistrate 'may', if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath. 18. In such cases, the spirit of the law is required to be seen and considered. The Magistrate is required to be conscious of the fact that the accused are living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of his Court. In such circumstances, sufficiency of ground is required to be seen, which in the opinion of this Court, has been seen. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as extracted in extenso herein above, I find no reason to hold that mandatory provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been violated so as to call for quashing of the impugned orders (supra) and the complaint. 19. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 20. The Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter. 21. Let a copy of this order be provided under the signature of the Court Master.