T.V. NALAWADE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both sides for final disposal.

2. All the three proceedings are filed to challenge the orders of issue process made by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class in private complaints filed for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The decisions given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the revisions filed in two matters like Criminal Revision Application Nos.86/2017 and 87/2017 which were pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmednagar, are also challenged. The revisions are dismissed by the Sessions Court.

3. The aforesaid relief is claimed on many grounds. One of the grounds is non compliance of the provision of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class before issuing process in all the three matters. The accused persons are residents of Mumbai. This Court is deciding the writ petitions only on that ground and if the petitioners succeed in satisfying this Court that the said provision is mandatory in nature, there will be no need to consider other grounds of challenge. Both the sides placed reliance on many reported and un-reported cases decided by this Court, other High Courts and also by the Supreme Court.

4. The provision of section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs 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 Session; 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.

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath:

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant."

5. In the aforesaid provision by way of amendment of 2005 it came to be provided that if the accused persons are residing at the place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises the jurisdiction, the Magistrate needs to postpone the issue process against the accused and follow the procedure given in section 202 of the Cr.P.C. In a matter like the present one, the Magistrate is expected to make inquiry into the case himself as per this provision. The "Notes on Clauses" given in Amendment Act 2005 mention as under :-

"False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was