Crl. Misc. No.M-3655 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-3655 of 2011 Date of Decision: 04.02.2011 Ashok Kumar ....Petitioner Versus The Hind Samachar Limited and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of Complaint no.1447/2/2010 dated 18.08.2010 titled as The Hind Samachar Limited and another vs. Parveen Solanki under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jalandhar and order dated 18.08.2010 under the above said section, as well as, all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. While challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold arguments ; (1)Firstly, the cheque, in question, itself shows that the same was towards security, as such, the petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable. (2)Secondly, two complainants have come forward to file the complaint stating themselves to be payee. Crl. Misc. No.M-3655 of 2011 2 Heard. No summoning order has been issued to the petitioner. No cause of action arises at this stage. Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the order dated 18.08.2010 (P-4), which is also impugned in the present petition. The said order reads as under :- “ Complaint presented today. It is registered. Perusal of head note of the complaint shows that accused is resident of Ambala Cantt., Haryana, meaning thereby, the accused is residing beyond the local limits of jurisdiction of this court as well as outside the state and as per the amended Section 202 of Cr.P.C where accused is residing beyond the area in which Judicial Magistrate exercise jurisdiction in that eventuality he would postpone the process against the accused and he will enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit or if there is sufficient grounds for proceedings. So in view of above mentioned provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 1973, the officer Incharge of the concerned police station is hereby directed to investigate into the subject matter u/s 202 Cr.P.C and to submit his report on 30.09.2010. Ahlmad of this court is directed to send his complaint in duplicate along with all other documents relied upon by the complainant to be furnished by the complainant within 7 days from today to the concerned officer Incharge against proper receipt as per rules for the purpose of investigation u/s 202 Cr.P.C.” It is apparent from the above that the said complaint has been referred for investigation in pursuance to the compliance of amended provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C., which are mandatory. Admittedly, the petitioner is residing at Ambala (Haryana) which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts at Jalandhar (Punjab), where the petition has been filed. Crl. Misc. No.M-3655 of 2011 3 Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under :- “202. 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 Sessions; 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.” Thus, the order dated 18.08.2010 (P-4) is in accordance with law and no cause of action has as yet arisen to the petitioner as the petitioner has not been summoned till date. In view of the above, the two contentions raised above by learned counsel for the petitioner, need not be gone into at this stage. Dismissed accordingly. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 04.02.2011 JUDGE gurpreet