1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1538 OF 2009 Shankar Ramnathan. ... Petitioner. V/s. Nayan Bhuva and Anr. ... Respondent. Mr. A.B. Dubey i/b. Bharat Vaishnav & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. Mallika Ingale for Respondent 1. Mr. P.A. Pol, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 18th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- From the complaint itself it is apparent that C.C.No. 1670/SS/2008 is filed in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (43rd Court), Borivali, Mumbai. 2. The Petitioner is arrayed as an Accused therein and the complaint described him as a sole Proprietor of M/s. Hi-tech Agencies having his Office at Coimbatore in the State of Tamilnadu. 3. In Criminal Application No. 2640 of 2009 (Capt. S.C. Mathur & Anr. V/s. M/s. Elektronik Lab & Ors.) decided on 8th January 2010, I had taken a view that Section 202(1) as amended by the Cr.P.C. amendment Act 2005 is mandatory. Since the Accused is not residing within the area of the Magistrate’s Jurisdiction, he must postpone the issue of process and take such steps as are provided by Section 202(1) 2 of Cr. P.C. In the instant case what the Petitioner is challenging is not the issuance of process but quashing of the complaint itself. 4. To my mind, in the peculiar facts of this case, the Petitioner can be protected by directing that the learned Magistrate must conduct the enquiry contemplated by Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. either by himself or the mode provided in law and only thereafter, issue the process to summons the Petitioner. Let such enquiry be conducted by him within the period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. All contentions including those raised in this Application are kept open. Petition disposed off. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)