ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to quash the impugned order dated 14.07.2021 passed by II-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapur, in C.C.No.7368/2021 (P.C.No.96/2019) and in consequence quash the order dated 06.07.2021 and issue any other appropriate order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein is the complainant who is the in-charge Chief Administrative Officer of District Court, Vijayapur, had filed complaint against the petitioner herein who is accused No.2 in S.C.No.85/2018 wherein the complainant had alleged that the petitioner had approached the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench for grant of bail in Criminal Petition No.200123/2018 and that on 02.04.2018, this Court has rejected the bail petition with an observation that the petitioner shall not be entitled to bail till the trial is concluded before the Sessions Court. Despite of the said order, the petitioner, by suppressing the said observation, approached I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, for grant of bail and that bail application was allowed on 28.08.2018 and thereby, he was released on bail. Hence, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has suppressed the order passed by this Court and the same is nothing but playing fraud on the Court and the same amounts to interference in the administration of justice. Based on the compliant, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 209 and 417 of IPC and directed the complainant to be present before the Court on the next date of hearing for enquiry i.e., by 12.07.2021. On 12.07.2021, the matter was called out and adjourned to 13.07.2021. On 13.07.2021, once again the matter was adjourned to 14.07.2021 for enquiry, on which day, the Court below was satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. Hence, the Court below directed the office to register CC and issued summons against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence, much less as alleged in the private complaint. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence, much less as alleged in the private complaint. The entire proceeding has taken place when he was in custody and he was not aware of the order passed against him except the end result of it. During his custody, the petition was filed and rejection of bail petition was not communicated to him when he was in jail. He was unaware of the said order and hence, ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 209 and 417 of IPC are not attracted. Hence, the allegation made in the complaint that the petitioner suppressed the earlier order and obtained the bail order is not correct. The Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court after looking into the matter has given authorization to in-charge Chief Administrative Officer to lodge complaint and there is no willful act of the petitioner as he was in custody. It is also contended that the Court below has not properly applied its mind and not followed procedural law as contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure since cognizance of the offence was taken on 06.07.2021 and that on 14.07.2021, the Court has directed the office to register the case by issuing summons. The procedure adopted by the Court below is unknown to law and the Court below could not have adjudicated the matter by taking cognizance on one day and registering the case on subsequent day. There is procedural irregularity which cannot be cured since end result of the order accrue right of the accused to challenge the same. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Section 340(3)(b) of Cr.P.C., and referring to the said Section, the learned counsel contended that authorization has to be given in writing by the Presiding Officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court and no such authorization is given to file complaint before the learned Magistrate in favour of in-charge Chief Administrative Officer and hence, the very filing of the complaint and taking cognizance is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also vehemently contended that after taking cognizance, the matter was posted for compliance of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., which vitiates the proceedings and an illegal order has been passed and hence, it requires interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State would submit that the authorization was given to the officer vide order dated 31.12.2018 by I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura and in the order itself it is made clear that it is expedient in the interest of justice further action has to be taken against the petitioner in accordance with law as the act of the petitioner in suppressing the material fact and obtaining bail amounts to interference in the administration of justice. While passing an order given authorization to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Court and directed to lodge the complaint against the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate. While passing the said order also, the Court below in detail dealt with the matter and thereafter, reasoning was given. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no authorization cannot be accepted. The learned counsel also submits that the learned Magistrate also having perused the material on record, taken cognizance and posted the matter for enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., does not vitiate the proceedings as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same is only for confirmation whether the learned Magistrate has got jurisdiction to proceed against the accused/petitioner and whether the accused/petitioner herein is residing within the jurisdiction of the Court. The complaint is also filed within the jurisdiction of the Court in which the petitioner is residing and no jurisdictional error is committed by the learned Magistrate. Hence, this Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and also keeping in mind the grounds urged in the petition, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are, i. Whether there was no authorization to file complaint as envisaged under Section 340(3)(b) of Cr.P.C.,? ii. Whether taking of cognizance and subsequently holding of enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., vitiates proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein ? iii. What order? Point No.1: 6. ii. Whether taking of cognizance and subsequently holding of enquiry under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., vitiates proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein ? iii. What order? Point No.1: 6. Before adverting to the facts of the case, this Court would like to extract Section 340 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows: “340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.- (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf. (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.” 7. (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.” 7. In the case on hand, it has to be noted that factual aspects is based on an admitted fact that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing petition in Criminal Petition No.200123/2018 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., and this Court vide order dated 02.04.2018 rejected the bail petition and while rejecting has passed the following order: “While doing so, it is made clear that he shall not be entitled to bail till the trial is concluded in the proceedings which is pending committal to Sessions Court.” 8. The fact that the petitioner had approached the Sessions Court subsequent to the dismissal of the bail petition and obtained the bail order before I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapura, vide order dated 28.08.2018 is not in dispute. No doubt, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the Hon'ble Apex Court has modified the order of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No.200123/2018 in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).10231/2019 observing that the petitioner can move the application for bail after period of one year from the date of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 04.04.2019, if the trial is not concluded during that period. It has to be noted that the said order was passed on 04.04.2019, but the petitioner herein, before disposal of SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, had approached the District Court and obtained the bail order on 28.08.2018 suppressing the earlier order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.200123/2018. This aspect has also not been in dispute. It is also important to note that, in the bail petition filed by other accused in Criminal Petition No.201273/2018, it was brought to the notice of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court that the petitioner herein by suppressing the order of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No.200123/2018, the bail order was secured. Hence, this Court vide order dated 14.12.2018, directed I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action and to submit report to this Court within thirty days from the date of receipt of the said order. Hence, this Court vide order dated 14.12.2018, directed I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action and to submit report to this Court within thirty days from the date of receipt of the said order. On receipt of the copy of the said order and on the basis of said direction of this Court, I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, in S.C.No.85/2018 vide order dated 31.12.2018 has authorized the Chief Administrative Officer of the said Court to lodge the complaint against the petitioner as the petitioner suppressing the material facts obtained bail which amounts to interference in the administration of justice. Now the question before this Court is whether this order is an authorization as contemplated under Section 340(3)(b) of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no authorization given in writing to file complaint. Now the question is whether any separate authorization is required in favour of the person who is authorized to file a complaint. On perusal of Section 340(3)(b) of Cr.P.C., it is clear that complaint made under this Section shall be signed in any other case by the Presiding Officer of the Court or such officer of the Court as the Court may authorize in writing in this behalf, that means, authorization has to be given to file a complaint. In the case on hand, authorization is given by directing the in-charge Chief Administrative Officer to lodge the complaint. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the same is a direction and not an authorization. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and there is no need to give separate authorization in writing when the said order has been passed based on the direction issued by this Court in Criminal Petition No.201273/2018 wherein a direction was given to I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, to enquire into the matter and take appropriate action and to submit report immediately. The Sessions Judge, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner obtained the bail order by suppressing the facts, authorized the in-charge Chief Administrative Officer to lodge the complaint and hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that authorization is not in conformity with the Section 340(3)(b) of Cr.P.C. The learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, authorized the in-charge Chief Administrative officer to lodge the complaint and while giving that direction also, the Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion that the bail order is obtained by suppressing the order passed by the High Court and the same amounts to interference in the administration of justice and hence, I answer point No.1 in the negative. Point No.2: 9. The other contention of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance has posted the matter for compliance of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., and the same vitiates the proceedings and the said order is an illegal order. 10. This Court would like to refer to Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., envisages that any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance, may 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. This Court also would like to refer to Section 201 of Cr.P.C. which envisages the procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case. If the complaint is made to a Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance of the offences, he shall, if the complaint is in writing, return it for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect; and if the complaint is not in writing, direct the complainant to the proper Court. Having read Sections 201 and 202 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that an enquiry has to be held whether the accused is residing within the jurisdiction of the Court in which complaint is filed and if the accused is not residing within the jurisdiction of the Court in which complaint is filed, then enquiry has to be held. Having read Sections 201 and 202 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that an enquiry has to be held whether the accused is residing within the jurisdiction of the Court in which complaint is filed and if the accused is not residing within the jurisdiction of the Court in which complaint is filed, then enquiry has to be held. The learned Magistrate while passing an order dated 06.07.2021 taken note of the contents of the complaint and has come to the conclusion that prima facie appears that the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 209 and 417 of IPC and also while exercising power has come to the conclusion that Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., is complied and further comes to the conclusion that the complainant has been authorized in writing by the I-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, hence, Section 340(3) of Cr.P.C., is also complied and found prima facie offences are punishable under Sections 209 and 417 of IPC. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of II-Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-II, Vijayapur. However, in the order learned Magistrate has taken note of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., in order to verify whether the accused/petitioner is residing within the jurisdiction of the Court and compliance of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., is necessary. As a matter of caution, the learned Magistrate postponed the issue of process. For enquiry, dates are given and subsequently, vide order dated 14.07.2021, after enquiring the Chief Administrative Officer under Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., issued process. As I have already pointed out, cognizance was taken vide order dated 06.07.2021 and as an abundant caution, for compliance of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., the matter was postponed for issue of process. Hence, the said order is also in compliance Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once cognizance was taken, the learned Magistrate ought not to have invoked Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., The question before the Court is whether the same vitiates issuance of process after taking cognizance. Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., makes it clear that the Court can postpone the issue of process. Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., makes it clear that the Court can postpone the issue of process. But, in the case on hand, the learned Magistrate though taken cognizance, postponed the issuance of process for compliance of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. and hence, the very contention of the learned counsel that it amounts to illegality and it vitiates the proceedings cannot be accepted and it is only procedural irregularity. The learned Magistrate has complied Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., before issuance of process. The proviso to Section 202 of Cr.P.C., enables the Magistrate postponement of issuance of process. Hence, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it vitiates the proceedings, at the most, it is only a procedural irregularity and procedural irregularity will not vitiate the proceedings of issuance of process against the petitioner. Hence, I answer point No.2 in the negative. 11. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed.