JUDGMENT Mr. Deepak Gupta, J. By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer is made to quash order dated 10.05.2017 (Annexure P-13) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, summoning the petitioner to face prosecution for committing offences under Section 420/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC in complaint No.219 of 2016 titled "Biram Singh v. Poonam & Others" (Annexure P-9). Prayer is also made to quash the said complaint. 2.1 Elections to Zila Parishad were held in the State of Haryana. One of the eligibility condition was that the women candidate of general category must possess minimum 8th standard pass qualification. In the said elections, Smt. Poonam (accused - petitioner herein) contested for the post of Member, Zila Parishad from Ward No. 1 Sohna and in her nomination, she mentioned that she had cleared exam of 8th standard from Sunita Gyan Niketan Public School, Najafgarh, New Delhi. 2.2 Complainant Biram Singh is the husband of Monika, the other contesting candidate. It was alleged by him that on verification of the record, it was found by the complainant that in fact, accused Poonam had earlier passed 5th standard examination from Government Primary School, Ramgarh Dhani, Badshahpur on 31.03.1998. Thereafter, she passed her 6th and 7th standard examination from the same school. Later on, she took admission in 8th standard in 2001-02 but failed to clear the exam. She again appeared for 8th standard in the session 2002-03 in the exam conducted by the Haryana School Education Board Bhiwani under Roll No.225430 but was declared fail. All this information was obtained by the complainant under R.T.I. It was alleged further that in order to make said Poonam eligible to contest the election of Member of Zila Parishad, a conspiracy was hatched, where-under accused No.4 Kalawati, the mother of Poonam furnished an affidavit stating therein that she was residing with her daughter Poonam at New Delhi and that Poonam had studied up to 7th Class privately at home and later on, she was able to take admission in 8th Class in Sunita Gyan Niketan School. The accused Nos.2 and 3 arrayed in the complaint are the Chairman and Principal of Sunita Gyan Niketan School, who issued a false affidavit to the effect that Poonam had studied in their school in 8th Standard and had qualified the same. The accused Nos.2 and 3 arrayed in the complaint are the Chairman and Principal of Sunita Gyan Niketan School, who issued a false affidavit to the effect that Poonam had studied in their school in 8th Standard and had qualified the same. It was alleged by the complainant that once it was found that Poonam had failed in 8th standard examination by appearing twice, it could not be possible that before declaring the result as fail by the exam conducted by the Haryana Board, she had already cleared the 8th standard from a private school. Complaint (Annexure P9) was accordingly made by the complainant Biram Singh-respondent no.2 before concerned jurisdictional court to summon and punish the accused with further prayer to send the complaint to the SHO Police Station City Gurugram for directing him to register the case against all the accused. 2.3 The record reveals that on the date of presentation of the complaint on 21.05.2016, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram declined the prayer of the complainant-respondent No.2 to send the complaint to the SHO concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. However, after noticing that two of the accused as arrayed in the complaint were residents of New Delhi i.e. outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the Magistrate, as per Section 202 Cr.P.C. directed to send the complaint to the police for investigation. 2.4 During the investigation conducted by the police, it was found that Poonam had passed her 7th Class from Government School, Badshahpur. Later on, she appeared twice for the 8th Class from the said school under the Haryana School Education Board and failed. The second time, her result declaring her fail in 8th standard was given in April, 2003. However, a certificate under Roll No. 1118 was procured from Sunita Gyan Niketan School on 31.03.2003 i.e. School Leaving Certificate for the session 2002- 03 declaring her as 8th pass. It was concluded by the police in its report Annexure P.11 that the affidavit furnished by mother of Poonam i.e. Smt. Kalawati was suspicious, in as much as Poonam had studied up to 7th Class in Government Girls School Badshahpur, whereas in her affidavit, it was mentioned that Poonam had studied privately at home up to 7th Class. Besides, Poonam had already failed twice in 8th Standard till the year 2003 from Government Girls School Badshahpur. Besides, Poonam had already failed twice in 8th Standard till the year 2003 from Government Girls School Badshahpur. 2.5 After receipt of the aforesaid report from the police, learned Magistrate recorded preliminary evidence. 2.6 It also emerged that in the meantime, Smt. Monika, the wife of complainant-Biram had filed an election petition under Section 176 of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 to declare the election of Smt. Poonam as Member of Zila Parishad as void. After taking necessary evidence, the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sohna, vide judgement dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure P-12) set aside the election of Smt. Poonam as Member of Zila Parishad, as it was found that she was not eligible being 8th Class fail on the date of contesting the election. 2.7 Based upon the preliminary evidence and also by referring to the order dated 25.04.2017 (Annexure P-12) of the Civil Court, learned Magistrate issued the process against accused Poonam and her mother Smt. Kalawati to face prosecution under Sections 420/467/468/471 and 120-B IPC. However, no process was issued against rest of the accused after observing that there was no prima facie evidence regarding their involvement in the commission of offence and the allegations against them were merely oral in nature without any corroborative evidence. 3. It is the aforesaid summoning order dated 10.05.2017, which has been assailed in the present petition. Contention of the learned counsel is that learned Magistrate did not follow the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as, once it was found that two of the accused were residents of New Delhi i.e. outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, it was required for him to record the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and only thereafter, he could have either take the cognizance himself or pass an order seeking police report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 4. However, after perusing the entire record, I find the contention to be devoid of merit. 5. However, after perusing the entire record, I find the contention to be devoid of merit. 5. Section 202 Cr.P.C read as under: "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. (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." 6. In present case, by way of the order dated 21.05.2016 (Annexure P-10), learned Magistrate observed that it was not a fit case to send the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After making another observation that two of the accused were residents of New Delhi, he sent the complaint under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to the police for investigation. No doubt, that said order dated 21.05.2016, appears to be in violation of Section 202 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as once it was found that two of the accused were residents out of territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and once it was found that the complaint was not filed by the Court, it was required for the Magistrate to first record the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and only thereafter, he could have adopted either of the two ways i.e. either to take cognizance himself or to send the complaint under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to the police. Since two of the accused were residents of outside the jurisdiction of the trial court, so it was also mandatory for the Magistrate to send the complaint to the Police for necessary investigation. Meaning thereby, it was required for the Magistrate to first record the statement of the complainant and his witnesses and then call for the report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. from the police. 7. At the same time, this court notices that the order dated 21.05.2016 has not been challenged by the accused in this petition. The accused has challenged only the summoning order dated 10.05.2017. The Magistrate in the impugned summoning order has not referred to the police report and has only referred to the preliminary evidence produced by the complainant in support of his case apart from referring the order of the Civil Court in the election petition. 8. It is important to notice that under the Scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, an enquiry can be made by a Court or a Magistrate, a Police Officer or any other person not being a Magistrate, who is authorised by the Magistrate to conduct investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Whether it be an enquiry by the Magistrate or investigation by a police officer or any other person, the primary object of this exercise is to collect oral or documentary proof pertaining to the commission of offence or the seizure of the property itself, in respect of which the offence has been committed. All this is required to facilitate the enquiry by the Magistrate culminating into prima facie conclusion, whether or not the offence has been committed. All this is required to facilitate the enquiry by the Magistrate culminating into prima facie conclusion, whether or not the offence has been committed. It can therefore, be said that from the stage the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence under Clause (a) of Section 190 till the stage, he arrives at a tentative conclusion as to whether or not any offence is made out against the accused persons, he is engaged in process of making enquiry into the case. Merely because he entrust investigation into the case to a police officer or any person other than the Magistrate, he cannot be deemed to have ceased holding enquiry in the case for the simple reason that he retains complete control over the case till he passes the order either under Section 203 Cr.P.C dismissing the complaint or under Section 204 Cr.P.C. issuing process against the accused. The police officer, whom a Magistrate may authorise to investigate the case under Section 202 Cr.P.C, may even register a case under Section 154 Cr.P.C and put up a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C, if the offence is a cognizable offence. Nevertheless, the Magistrate is not bound to accept the report and hold that a prima facie case is established against the accused. He has still a right to examine such report along with the statement of the complainant or any witness recorded on oath by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C in order to find out, whether or not a prima facie case has been made out against the accused. If in his opinion, no such case is made out, he shall dismiss the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. There is no legal obligation on the part of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence to take police reports in every case. The procedure laid down in the Section 202 Cr.PC comes into play, only when the Magistrate decides to postpone the issue of process. Even after the Magistrate himself has conducted an enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C, he can thereafter direct an investigation and vice versa i.e., even if he directs investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., he can thereafter enquire the matter himself. 9. Even after the Magistrate himself has conducted an enquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C, he can thereafter direct an investigation and vice versa i.e., even if he directs investigation under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., he can thereafter enquire the matter himself. 9. In view of the aforesaid legal position, merely because the Magistrate first got the police investigation conducted and then recorded preliminary evidence, cannot itself render the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate, summoning the accused and issue process against her as illegal. 10. Further, at the stage of summoning the accused and issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to see the prima facie case. The preliminary evidence is not required to be scrutinized in such a manner to conclude as to whether the same would ultimately lead to conviction or not. Moreover, simply because the operation of the order passed by the Civil Court in election petition was later on stayed by this Court in CWP No.11018 of 2017, cannot be a ground to set aside the impugned summoning order. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court does not find any merit in the present petition. Learned Magistrate has meticulously gone through the preliminary evidence produced on file so as to come to the conclusion that prima facie there is sufficient evidence to show the commission of offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. As such, finding the present petition to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.