H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the arguments of petitioners' counsel and also the respondent's counsel.

2. The petitioners in this petition invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C. prayed this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 214/2016, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hanagal and to pass such other suitable orders.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondent herein had filed a complaint before the Court below under section 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that the 1st petitioner lodged a complaint to the Director General of Doordarshan on 23.1.2015 i.e. one year six months prior to the filing of the complaint. The Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hangal, Haveri district, issued summons to these petitioners on 5.11.2016. As on the date of complaint dated 6.6.2016, the respondent was stationed at New Delhi in the address CPWD Quarters, Asian Games Village, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi. The respondent being a Government servant suppressed the fact of his address and falsely claimed his address in the moufusial taluk headquarters at Hangal as mentioned in the cause title with the sole and ulterior motive to harass the petitioners by hoodwinking the judicial process. The entire process is a cumulativem, concocted, self glorified facts which were not authenticated by any certifying authorities. The other contention that, of late Hangal is an obscure taluka head quarters classified as a major backward area and expecting a person who had an accidental meeting on the roads of inspection bungalow narrate the factual matrix which were published in the nationally acclaimed newspaper 'the telegraph' as a matter of fact, the copies of telegraph are not even available at any South Indian Capitals. The very fact of filing the complaint in Hangal Court and issuance of process to the distant Delhi appears to be a grand design which needs to be probed.

4. The petitioners in the petition have contended that though a cause of action was created and injected to net the Court below, admitted the incident that happened in the head quarters of Doordarshan, New Delhi and facts were usurped to a cause of action of Hangal without any valid, tenable document of stationing of the respondent at Hangal. The other contention that the alleged offences against the petitioners has no relevance to the al legations made by the respondent and filed false case with a sole intention to hamper the reputation of the petitioners. The Court below also taken cognizance is a clear violation of territorial application of criminal law. The Court below would have transferred the complaint to the appropriate Court of law as the cause of action is contrary to sections 14 and 177 of Cr.P.C. The Section 177 of Cr.P.C. envisages that every of fence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within where local jurisdiction in which it was committed and further contend that there is no iota of evidence whatsoever and hence prayed this Court to quash the initiation of criminal proceedings.

5. The petitioners' counsel in support of his contention he also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court between Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another, (2017) 3 SCC 528. The Apex Court in this judgment referring to section 202 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the Amendment Act 25 of 2005, held with regard to the object is concerned, enquiry by Magistrate in cases where accused resides at a place beyond his jurisdiction held it is mandatory. Proper enquiry, what proper enquiry envisages is proper application of mind by examination of witnesses by Magistrate and also if it is not applied what could be the course. The Apex Court in the judgment held that on being satisfied that mandatory requirements under section 202 were not fulfilled by Magistrate before issuing process, can direct the Magistrate to take the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in compliance with section 202 of Cr.P.C.

6. Per contra, the counsel appea