1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2009 Radheshayan Agarwal ........Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & anr........Respondents. Mr. P,J, Kanani & Vaidya Dagre for the Petitioner. Mr. SA.P. Mundargi adv. for the Respondent no.2. Ms. A.T. Zaveri APP for State CORAM: B. R. GAVAI, J. DATED : 15th February, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The limited ground on which the order of issuance of process is challenged in the present application is that while issuing process, the learned Magistrate has not made enquiry as contemplated under the amended provisions of section 202 of Cr.P.C. in view of the fact that the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who has exercised the jurisdiction. 3. The learned Single Judge of this court while deciding a bunch of applications, being Criminal Application No. 2640/09 along with other matters, has taken a view that the amended 2 provisions of section 202 of Cr.P.C. are mandatory in nature and unless the learned Magistrate either makes an enquiry by himself or directs the investigation to be made by police officers, the process cannot be issued and the issuance of process has to be postponed. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate for complying with the provisions of section 202 of Cr.P.C. (B.R. Gavai, J.)