1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2514 OF 2009 Shri Dhondiba Krishna Pawar & Ors. : Applicants V/s. M/s.Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.A. Patankar for the applicants. Mr.Yogesh Israni i/b. M/s.Gajria & Co., for respondent no.1. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 02, 2010. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Heard by consent. 2. By the present application, the applicants challenge the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate at Small Causes Court, Mumbai, in C.C. No.752/SS/2006. 3. The applicants have raised two grounds in support of the 2 application. Firstly, since the applicants are residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate before whom the complaint is filed, it was necessary for him to have made an inquiry himself or through the police station or by any person as required under section 202 before issuing the process. Secondly, it is urged that the verification which is done is in a mechanical manner and, therefore, not permissible, in accordance with law. 4. A learned single Judge of this Court in Criminal Application No.2640 of 2009 and companion matters has held that when the accused are residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate before whom the complaint is filed, it is necessary for him to hold an inquiry himself or cause an inquiry through the police officer before issuance of process and till such time, postpone the issuance of process. Admittedly, in the present case, though the accused are residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed, no such inquiry has been conducted. 5. This Court in the case of Amarnath Baijnath Gupta v. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2009 All M.R. (Cri.) 184 has also held that the statement which is required to be recorded under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality and that it cannot be recorded in a 3 mechanical manner. In the present case, it can be seen that the statement has been recorded by filling in blanks on prepared form. As such, the said verification is also not in accordance with law as laid down by this Court. 6. In this view of the matter, the application is required to be allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for taking further steps, in accordance with law. The complaint is pending since 2006. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of one year from today. B. R. GAVAI, J.