1. This Court (Coram : T.V.Nalawade, J.) by it's order dated 01.07.2015 had stayed the proceedings in SCC No.196/2014 pending before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biloli by passing the following order:

1. Notice. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent No.2 is made returnable on 05th August, 2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued for interim stay of the proceeding on the ground that inquiry as required under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not made even when the present petitioners, accused are not residing within local jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate. In view of this submission stay is granted to the proceedings of SCC No.196/2014 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class till next date.”

2. Respondent No.2, who is the Complainant in SCC No.196/2014, has chosen not to cause an appearance either through an Advocate or in person despite service of the court notice which was issued on 01.07.2015.

3. Shri Venjane, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, submits that Respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 12.09.2014 under Sections 294, 323, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners and Mr.Kailash Ramrao Kotwale. Mr.Kotwale is not party to the present proceedings.

4. The learned Advocate submits that though allegations have been made against the Petitioners along with Mr.Kotwale, no allegations have been set out in the verification dated 12.09.2014 before the learned Court so as to make out any case against the Petitioners. Yet, process has been issued against the Petitioners vide the impugned order dated 18.09.2014.

5. He further submits that the Petitioners reside beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court and as such, the process could not have been issued against the Petitioners without conducting an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Shri Venjane places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Vimal Powerloom vs. Ravi Agency, 2014 All M.R. (Cri.) 1696, to support his contention that the Honourable Supreme Court as well as this Court have consistently held that unless an enquiry is conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the amended portion brought into effect from 23.06.2006, 'Process' could not have been issued against the Petitioners.

7. He, therefore, submits that the order of issuance of process dated 18.09.2014 passed by the learned Court deserves to be quashed and set aside as against the Petitioners.

8. The learned APP has opposed this petition by contending that the issuance of process by the competent court indicates that it has gone through the complaint and the verification of the complainant and has ordered issuance of process by applying it's mind to the accusations made against the Petitioners. He submits that just because an enquiry was not conducted under Section 202, the impugned order need not be interfered with.

9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates.

10. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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, Inserted by Act 25 of 2005, S.19 (w.e.f.23.06.2006). [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 exclusivel