1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 584 OF 2009 Mr. Aroon Puri & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s. All India Backward (SC, ST, OBC) and Minority Communities Employees Federation & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Amit Desai i/b. M/s. ALMT Legal for the Petitioners. Mr. M.M. Gohar i/b. R.U. Patil for Respondent 1. Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 10th FEBRUARY 2010. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Desai, learned Advocate on behalf of the Petitioners/Original Accused and the learned Advocate appearing for the Original Complainant. 2. In this complaint which is filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. being the allegations is that the accused are guilty of offences punishable under Section 499, Explanation 2, 500 and 34 of I.P.C. 3. Admittedly, the Accused are residing beyond limits of the Trial Court’s jurisdiction. I have already taken a view on the legal issue that Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. to the extent it is amended in 2005, is mandatory. Prior to issuance of process in such cases, the Magistrate has to find out as to whether 2 there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Complainant states that it is not as if immediately on filing of the complaint that the process is issued, the verification was recorded on 11th September 2008. Further the Magistrate directed the Advocate for the Complainant to produce the relevant materials and called upon him to satisfy him with regard to the allegations in the complaint. It is, thereafter, that is on 4th November 2008, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, the issuance of process was postponed and the necessary inquiry has been held before the prima-facie conclusion is recorded by the Magistrate. Therefore, this is not a fit case to interfere and stall the proceedings before the Trial Court. 4. Having perused the complaint and all the orders made including the impugned one, I am not satisfied that the Magistrate has adhered to the mandate of Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C. as amended by the Amendment Act, 2005. The object and purpose of the amendment is already noticed in my detailed order passed in Criminal Application No.2640 of 2009 decided on 8th January 2010. It is clear from the complaint allegations and the array of parties that each of the accused is having his address in New Delhi. Further, the complaint alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of I.P.C. The purpose of 202(1) of Cr.P.C. as amended is to find out whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and at least some of them. In the instant 3 case, if it is the Assistant Editor or Reporter of the Magazine, who is concerned with the Article published locally, then, whether the Editor-in-Chief, the Editor who are all based in New Delhi, are summoned or not is not clear even in the prima-facie satisfaction recorded. 5. In such circumstances, the Petition succeeds. The order under challenge is set aside and the complaint is restored to the file for proceeding at the stage at which the Magistrate must adhere to Sections 200 and 202(1) of Cr.P.C. as amended. All contentions as raised before me are kept open and no opinion is expressed thereon. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)