ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and also the proceedings in C.C. No. 16400/2019 and consequently quashing the criminal complaint registered as PCR No. 11811/20005 and pass such other order as deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No. 2 has filed the private complaint invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 110, 406, 417, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The complaint was registered as PCR No. 11811/2005, wherein the factual matrix of the case is that the complainant is a venture capitalist and its main object is to finance, assisting, development and commercialization of technology in general by granting loans, advances or grants in any other manner. The complainant had agreed to participate in the venture and accordingly the complainant was to have allotted 3,33,333 equity shares of value of Rs. 10/- each at a premium of Rs. 5/- per share in terms of the equity subscription agreement dated 20.10.2001 entered into with the first accused. Subsequently, supplementary agreement dated 20.02.2002 was entered into by the complainant with the accused Nos. 2 to 8 since accused No. 1 was supposed to be the promoter of the venture authorized accused No. 2 to act on behalf of them. Accused Nos. 3 to 8 being the principal of accused No. 2 are liable for the acts and omissions of accused No. 2. Accused Nos. 2 to 8 have conspired to cheat the complainant by dishonestly inducing the complainant to deliver Rs. 50,00,000/- at the instance of the accused No. 1. The complainant had advanced a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- to various dates through accused No. 1. Though the complainant has subscribed to the equity shares of Rs. 3,33,333/- the accused No. 1 did not allot the shares in terms of clause 4.4 of equity subscription agreement dated 20.10.2001 and supplementary agreement dated 20.02.2002. 3. Due to the utter shock and dismay of the complainant, the project was not implemented by accused No. 1. But on the contrary, complainant learnt that there has been a total cessation of operations. 3. Due to the utter shock and dismay of the complainant, the project was not implemented by accused No. 1. But on the contrary, complainant learnt that there has been a total cessation of operations. The accused was induced to deliver a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- by accused No. 1. The complainant called upon accused Nos. 1 and 2 to refund Rs. 50,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. But inspite of repeated request and demand and the representation, the accused not thought it fit to refund the said amount. The accused No. 1 falsely represented to the complainant that he had the capacity and required expertise for setting up a project for the development and marketing of software for network and application managements. But the accused have cheated the complainant by impersonation, fraud and dishonestly inducing to part with his funds. Inspite of legal notice dated 03.02.2005 was caused, the accused No. 2 gave the reply stating that he will settle the issue in amicable manner, but not settled the same as per the reply and committed the offences. Hence, the complainant sought for taking action against the accused. 4. Learned Magistrate, after receiving the complaint, referred the matter to the jurisdiction police and after the investigation, the jurisdiction police have submitted the ‘B’ report. Learned Magistrate after recording the sworn statement, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. observing that the matter in dispute is of civil in nature. The complainant has preferred the Crl. R.P. No. 12/2008 and the said petition also came to be dismissed vide order dated 20.03.2010. The complainant again preferred the criminal petition before this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 2704/2010. The said petition came to be allowed and set aside the orders passed by the Trial Courts and remanded back the matter to the Trial Court for reconsideration in the light of the observations made in the said orders. 5. On perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it is noticed that the records in the PCR were destroyed and the fresh sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and got marked the documents at Exs.C1 to C22. When the case was posted for hearing the matter, accused No. 4 preferred Crl. Pet. 5. On perusal of the order passed by the Trial Court, it is noticed that the records in the PCR were destroyed and the fresh sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and got marked the documents at Exs.C1 to C22. When the case was posted for hearing the matter, accused No. 4 preferred Crl. Pet. No. 5076/2015 to quash the complaint and the said petition came to be allowed and in so far as accused No. 4 is concerned, the order attains its finality. The Trial Judge, after considering the sworn statement of the complainant and also on perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, comes to the conclusion that he has made out the prima-facie case to proceed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 for the offences alleged against the accused. 6. Having considered the ‘B’ report and also the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned Judge made an observation in the order that the complainant has made out the sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the offences alleged in the complaint. The burden is on the complainant to prove the alleged offences during the course of trial. The Court at the time of issuance of process not required to examine meticulously the materials placed on the record. However, it is found that there is a prima-facie material to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 109, 110, 406, 417, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued summons. Hence, the present petition is filed before the Court by accused Nos. 2 and 6 for quashing of the order for issuance of summons and also to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that despite being specifically directed by this Court to ascertain the colour of the dispute (Civil or Criminal) by applying the judicious mind in order to ascertain the criminal intent, the learned Magistrate has mechanically passed the impugned order on the basis of the prima-facie material being the part of the complaint. Learned Magistrate has failed to ascertain the criminal intent and on perusal of the complaint in PCR No. 11811/2005 it does not disclose any criminal intent on the part of the petitioners. There was no any case of misappropriation of money. Learned Magistrate has failed to ascertain the criminal intent and on perusal of the complaint in PCR No. 11811/2005 it does not disclose any criminal intent on the part of the petitioners. There was no any case of misappropriation of money. The complaint discloses only the unsubstantiated bald allegations. The offence of cheating cannot be made out in the instant case in the absence of any deception or any form of inducement based on such deception. There is no any material to indicate any form of inducements. On perusal of the material on record, it is clear that both the parties have invested the capital and it is only because of the recession in the market, the project could not be implemented. There is no any occasion for invoking the ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The complainant could have approached the Company Law Board or the NCLT seeking an allotment of equity shares and no criminality is required to be attributed to such actions. The complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 was unwarranted and unjustified. The jurisdiction police after investigation have filed the ‘B’ report by rightly coming to the conclusion that there is no any criminality. The complainant by giving a colour of criminal wrong to the civil dispute abused the process, which leads to miscarriage of justice. 8. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has not been complied with since these petitioners are residing outside and there is no any reference with regard to dishonest intention. The petitioners are the Directors of the Company and there cannot be any criminal proceedings against them in the absence of the criminal culpability. 9. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another, (2017) 3 SCC 528 and brought to the notice of this Court with regard to Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the said judgment observed that the mandatory requirements of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. were not fulfilled by the Magistrate before issuing the process. 10. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Para Nos. 10. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Para Nos. 7, 23 and 30 of the judgment and referring to these paragraphs, he would contend that where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202 of Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2005 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, by adding the words “and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction.” Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. Learned counsel referring to paragraph No. 27, with regard to summoning of the accused, brought to notice of this Court that the material does not reflect any such inquiry and observed that in so far as these two accused persons are concerned, there is no enquiry of the nature as enumerated in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the order is not legally sustainable. 11. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sethi and Another vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others passed in Criminal Appeal No. 125/2020 decided on 31.01.2020 and brought to the notice of this Court Para Nos. 6, 7.2, 7.3, 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8, wherein the Apex Court has observed that from the bare reading of the FIR and even charge sheet there are no allegations that there was a fraudulent and dishonest intention to cheat the Government from the very beginning of the transaction. Even there are no specific allegations and averments in the FIR/charge sheet that the appellants were in-charge of administration and management of the Company and thereby vicariously liable. 12. The Apex Court in Para No. 7 of the judgment has discussed in detail with regard to exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that when a complainant intends to rope in a Managing Director or any officer of the Company, it is essential to make requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability. 12. The Apex Court in Para No. 7 of the judgment has discussed in detail with regard to exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that when a complainant intends to rope in a Managing Director or any officer of the Company, it is essential to make requisite allegation to constitute the vicarious liability. In Para No. 8, it is held that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 13. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another vs. Sudha Seetharam and Another passed in Crl. Appeal No. 238/2019 decided on 15.02.2019 and brought to the notice of this Court Para Nos. 18, 22, 23 and 24, wherein the Apex Court held that the condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence under Section 415 of the Penal Code is that there was dishonest inducement by the accused. The Apex Court in Para No. 23 held that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the same has to be exercised with care. In exercise of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil in nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will constitute an abuse of process of the Court. 14. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Others vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 and brought to the notice of this Court Para Nos. 26, 27, 32, 42 and 46, wherein the Apex Court has held that the inherent powers should be exercised to quash the proceedings where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuation of the proceedings; where the allegations in the First Information Report or complaint taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety do not constitute the offence alleged and where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima-facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issue involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. While exercising the said power, the Court must ensure that the criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself and under such circumstances, cannot be quashed. 15. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Umashankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another, (2005) 10 SCC 336 and brought to the notice of this Court Para Nos. 6 and 7, wherein the Apex Court also held that when the complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either Section 420 or Section 120B of IPC and the case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a Civil Court by filing a properly constituting suit. 16. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bharti Mittal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609 and brought to the notice of this Court Para Nos. 40, 44 and 46, wherein the Apex Court has held that when the Company is the offender, vicarious liability of the Directors cannot be imputed automatically, in the absence of any statutory provision to this effect. One such example is Section 141 of the NI Act. 17. The Apex Court also reiterated the principles laid down in the judgment of Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 668 with regard to the Magistrate has to apply his judicious mind as to whether the offence alleged to have been committed is of a cognizable or non-cognizable offence. 18. 17. The Apex Court also reiterated the principles laid down in the judgment of Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2008) 5 SCC 668 with regard to the Magistrate has to apply his judicious mind as to whether the offence alleged to have been committed is of a cognizable or non-cognizable offence. 18. Learned counsel referring to these judgments would contend that the very continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners herein is an abuse of process. Even though the I.O. has filed the ‘B’ report stating that the dispute is civil in nature, the learned Magistrate has committed an error. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the learned Magistrate following the procedure, recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and considering the material on record has passed the impugned order, which has to disproved by the accused in a trial. The averment of the complaint is specific with regard to cheating. Even though the amount in a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- was received with the promise that they are going to issue the equity share, no such shares were issued. That itself amounts to cheating at the inception of collecting the money on false assurance and inducement being made by the complaint to part with the money. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be accepted. 20. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention would rely upon the judgment passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1158/2010 and SLP (Crl.) No. 1416/2009 in the case of Shivjee Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary and Others, wherein the Apex Court held that proviso to Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. is not mandatory in character-examination of all the witnesses cited in the complaint or whose names are disclosed by the complainant in furtherance of the direction given by the Magistrate in terms of proviso to Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. is not a condition precedent for taking cognizance and issue of process against the persons named as accused in the complaint. The Magistrate is required to direct the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. 21. The Magistrate is required to direct the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. 21. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Baburao Chinchanasur vs. Anjana A. Shanthaveer passed in Criminal Petition No. 8639/2016, wherein this Court has held with regard to inquiry or investigation contemplated under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. referring to the case in National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another, (2013) 2 SCC 488 . The scope of inquiry or investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is restricted to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine as to whether the process has to be issued or not. 22. This Court, considering the contentions raised by both the parties in respect of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and also referring the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Abhijit Pawar’s case held that every inquiry other than the Trial conducted by the Magistrate or the Court is an inquiry. Where no specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of 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. The scope of inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is restricted only to cull out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine as to whether the process has to be issued or not. Section 200 of Cr.P.C. does not provide for any specific mode or manner of inquiry and the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is different from the requirement of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. as Section 190 of Cr.P.C. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the learned Magistrate that he has been satisfied with the allegations made in the complaint constituting an offence. 23. 23. This Court has held in Baburao Chinchanasur’s case that tested on the touchstone of the above principles, the learned Magistrate has not specifically stated in the impugned order that the order was passed under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. But, a reading of the said order on the face of it reveals that all the requirements of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. are followed and what could be deciphered from the impugned order is that the learned Magistrate has (i) taken into account the materials placed by the complainant; (ii) has applied his mind to find out whether prima-facie case has been made out to issue process. To this extent, the impugned order has the trappings of an order under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. and satisfies the requirements thereof. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable to the case on hand as it has been held therein that the proviso to Section 202(2) of Cr.P.C. has not been complied with and the said judgment is in respect of compliance of Section 201(1) of Cr.P.C. Hence, there cannot be any continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners. 25. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State, this Court has to examine whether the issuance of process against the petitioners herein is without any material on record and that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in issuing the process in the light of the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra by the respective counsel. On perusal of the records, it discloses that the private complaint was filed against the petitioners herein under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after taking the cognizance proceeded to record the sworn statement and thereafter, comes to the conclusion that it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and invoking Section 203 of Cr.P.C. dismissed the complaint. The said order has been questioned before the Revisional Court in Crl. R.P. No. 12/2008 and the same is also dismissed, which came to be questioned before this Court in Crl. Pet. The said order has been questioned before the Revisional Court in Crl. R.P. No. 12/2008 and the same is also dismissed, which came to be questioned before this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 2704/2010 and this Court vide order dated 12.01.2015 held that the sworn statement of the petitioner/complainant would prima-facie reveal that accused have received a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs from the petitioners, for which they have to allot equity shares and induct the petitioner as one of the directors in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. 26. Learned Magistrate has not considered whether there was dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the inception, which is sina qua non to hold that the dispute is of civil in nature. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. This Court set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and also the Revisional Court and remanded the matter for reconsideration in the light of the observations made in the order. 27. Now this Court has to consider the order passed by the learned Magistrate is in compliance of the direction of this Court or not with regard to considering whether there was any dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the inception. On perusal of the order impugned dated 22.04.2019 which is questioned before this Court, learned Magistrate has extracted the allegations made in the complaint, particularly, against all the accused. This petition is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 8. On perusal of the complaint, an allegation is made that accused Nos. 3 to 8 being the Principal of accused No. 2 are liable for the acts or omissions of accused No. 2. The allegations against these petitioners and other accused persons are that they have conspired to cheat the complainant by dishonestly inducing the complainant to deliver Rs. 50 lakhs at the instance of accused No. 1. 28. It is also important to note that the complainant had advanced a consolidated sum of Rs. 50 lakhs to the accused on various dates through accused No. 1 for which equity shares of 3,33,333 is to be allotted but accused No. 1 did not allot the share as envisaged in clause 4.4 of the Equity Subscription Agreement dated 20.10.2011 and Supplementary Agreement dated 20.02.2002. The accused induced to deliver a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs by accused No. 1. The accused induced to deliver a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs by accused No. 1. Inspite the complainant had called upon accused Nos. 1 and 2 to refund the amount, the same was not refunded. The specific allegations against accused No. 2 is that he has replied to the notice given by the complainant stating that he will settle the issue in an amicable manner, but not settled. The learned Magistrate discussed with regard to the earlier order and after filing the ‘B’ report, proceeded to record the sworn statement and dismissed the complaint which came to be questioned in the Revision Petition and also the order passed by this Court. 29. Learned Magistrate also observed in Para No. 4 of the order that the earlier sworn statement was destroyed, as a result of which, the fresh sworn statement was recorded. The learned Magistrate also took note of the sworn statement and also the documents Exs.C1 to C22. It is observed that on perusal of the sworn statement, the complaint averments and the documents produced by the complainant, the prima-facie case has been made out to proceed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 for the offences alleged in the complaint. Despite, the learned Magistrate had discussed the direction given by this Court in the earlier Criminal Petition No. 2704/2010 in the bottom of the Para No. 3, remanding the matter for reconsideration, but no where in the order discussed with regard to whether there was any dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the inception, which is a sina qua non to hold that the dispute is of the civil in nature and further observed that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 30. When such a categorical direction was given to the learned Magistrate, learned Magistrate failed to consider the direction of this Court in ascertaining whether there was any dishonest intention to proceed against the petitioners. Nothing is discussed in Para No. 5 of the order in respect of the direction except coming to the conclusion that there is prima-facie case to proceed against the accused persons. On that ground itself, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Trial Court for compliance of the direction of this Court which has been issued in the earlier order passed in Crl. Pet. On that ground itself, the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Trial Court for compliance of the direction of this Court which has been issued in the earlier order passed in Crl. Pet. No. 2704/2020. 31. It is also important to note that the police after investigation have filed the ‘B’ report on the ground that the dispute is of civil in nature. When the report is given by the police in order to continue the criminal proceedings, learned Magistrate has to consider the material on record as to whether there was dishonest intention at the inception and if the dishonest intention at the inception is not found, then there cannot be any criminal proceedings and if dishonest intention is found at the inception, it is a case for continuation of criminal prosecution. 32. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that learned Magistrate has not complied Section 202 of Cr.P.C. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied upon the principles laid down in Abhijit Pawar’s case, wherein the Apex Court in Para No. 23 has discussed with regard to conducting of inquiry and so also discussed as to whether any specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code in Para Nos. 25 and 26, which is extracted as hereunder:- “23. Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202 Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2005 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22-6-2006 by adding the words “and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction.” There is a vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such persons residing at a far-off places in order to save them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is specifically mentioned in the note appended to the Bill proposing the said amendment. 25. For this reason, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to apply his mind carefully and satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the enquiry conducted thereon, would prima-facie constitute the offence for which the complaint is filed. This requirement is emphasised by this Court in a recent judgment Mehmood Ul Rehman vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124, in the following words: (SCC pp. 429-430, Paras 20 and 22) “20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter. *** *** *** 22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) Cr.P.C. followed by Section 204 Cr.P.C. should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima-facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima-facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 Cr.P.C. the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” 26. The requirement of conducting enquiry or directing investigation before issuing process is, therefore, not an empty formality. What kind of “enquiry” is needed under this provision has also been explained in Vijay Dhanuka vs. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 479, which is reproduced hereunder: (SCC p. 645, Para 14) “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. 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.” 33. On perusal of the case on hand, the accused persons are not staying within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, the Court has to examine whether there is any substantial material to proceed against the accused persons, who is residing outside the jurisdiction by holding an inquiry. The amended provision under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. contemplates with regard to the word “shall” in case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. It is observed in the judgment that there is a vital purpose or object behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such persons residing at far-off places in order to save them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. 34. Thus, in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. 34. Now the question arises before this Court is what are the requirements for conducting an inquiry or directing investigation before issuing the process is, therefore, not an empty formality. The Supreme Court in Vijay Dhanuka vs. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638 held with regard to what Kind of “enquiry” is needed under this provision. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has discussed that no specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined, whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant is only necessary if 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. 35. It is further observed that the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to apply his mind carefully and satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would prima-facie constitute the offence for which the complaint is filed. The Apex Court in the relevant paragraph Nos. 23, 25 and 26 also discussed with regard to Section 2(g) of Cr.P.C. “Inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court. It is also observed with regard to both the scope of Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate has to look into the material available on record as to whether the material is sufficient for summoning an accused. In the case on hand, private complaint is filed and the matter was referred at the first instance for investigating officer and the investigating officer has filed the ‘B’ report stating that the dispute involved between the parties is civil in nature. Against the said order, protest petition was filed and learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn statement. In the case on hand, private complaint is filed and the matter was referred at the first instance for investigating officer and the investigating officer has filed the ‘B’ report stating that the dispute involved between the parties is civil in nature. Against the said order, protest petition was filed and learned Magistrate proceeded to record the sworn statement. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that the earlier sworn statement was not available on record and the same was destroyed. Hence, the fresh sworn statement of complainant was recorded. Only the complainant has been examined and no witnesses has been examined. 36. It is important to note that when the Apex Court has discussed regarding inquiry under Section 2(g) of Cr.P.C. and also discussed with regard to Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. it is crystal clear that the learned Magistrate has to examine the complainant, if it is a case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. if it is an inquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. the witnesses have to be examined. In the case on hand except examining the complaint, none of the witnesses are examined. The very judgment of the Apex Court in Abhijit Pawar’s case is clearly held that learned Magistrate ought to have recorded the statements of the witnesses and the same has not been done. Based on the sworn statement of complainant, proceeded to pass an order. The Apex Court has made it clear that in the cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. Hence, learned Magistrate ought to have examined other witnesses also in order to come to a right conclusion and the same has not been done in the case on hand. 37. Hence, learned Magistrate ought to have examined other witnesses also in order to come to a right conclusion and the same has not been done in the case on hand. 37. On perusal of the summoning order issued against the petitioners herein for the offences invoked against them, no doubt, the judgment referred by the respondent counsel in Baburao Chinchanasur’s case, this Court also in detail discussed several judgments including the judgment of the year 2010 onwards and summed up the principles in para No. 16 of the judgment, wherein it is observed that enquiry or investigation before issuing the process to an accused residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises its jurisdiction is mandatory as per Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It is further observed that the scope of inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process is to be issued or not. It is also observed that the Section 202 of Cr.P.C. does not provide for any specific mode or manner of enquiry. Enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is different from the requirement of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. or Section 190 of Cr.P.C. In an enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. witnesses are examined, whereas under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. examination of only the complainant is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present. It is also observed that the investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. is different from the investigation as contemplated under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. It is also observed that the there must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the learned Magistrate that he is satisfied with the allegations in the complaint constituting an offence. 38. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment of Abhijit Pawar’s case and also the judgment of this Court in Baburao Chinchanasur’s case referred supra, this Court has to examine whether the material on record is sufficient and whether the Magistrate is satisfied with the allegations in the complaint. 38. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgment of Abhijit Pawar’s case and also the judgment of this Court in Baburao Chinchanasur’s case referred supra, this Court has to examine whether the material on record is sufficient and whether the Magistrate is satisfied with the allegations in the complaint. Tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and also the principles summed up by this Court, this Court has to examine in respect of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. the inquiry, though it a specific mode has not been envisaged under the Act, it is made clear that in order to investigate under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. the witnesses are to be examined. In the case on hand also Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. applies for the reason that accused persons are residing out side the jurisdiction of the Court. When such being the case in order to come to the conclusion that whether the complaint is false or whether there is any substance of material to proceed against the accused, learned Magistrate has to exercise its jurisdiction in order to filter and reject the complaint if those complaints are false, but in the case on hand, the specific allegation is made against the accused persons that they induced the complaint in parting with the money of Rs. 50 lakhs with an assurance that they are going to allot the equity shares. This Court also remanded the matter with a direction to examine whether there was a dishonest intention found at the inception and the same has not been done. Hence, it requires further inquiry as contemplated under Section 201 of Cr.P.C. in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court and also this Court in the judgments referred supra and then the Magistrate has to take a decision as to whether it is a fit case to proceed against the petitioners. 39. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:- ORDER: (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in compliance with the direction given by this Court in Crl. Pet. 39. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:- ORDER: (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 22.04.2019 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed in compliance with the direction given by this Court in Crl. Pet. No. 2704/2010 and also adhere to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court which have been discussed supra and also the judgment of this Court and then take a decision to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law.