IMPORTANT POINT
Examination of witnesses is an enquiry u/s 202 CrPC.

JUDGMENT

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad,J. –

Petitioners have been summoned in a complaint case for commission of offence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as "the IPC". Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur, Murshidabad on 1st of October, 2011, who after taking cognizance of the same, transferred the complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad for inquiry and disposal. According to the allegation in the complaint petition, accused no.1 Rajdip Dey is sub-broker of Karvy Stock Broking Limited; whereas other accused persons are its officials posted at Kolkata and Hyderabad. The complainant alleged to be its investor and claimed to have purchased shares from Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. through the sub-broker, accused No. 1.

2. According to the complaint, a dispute arose over trading of shares between the complainant and the accused persons and to settle the on-going dispute, the accused persons offered a proposal to the complainant who consented to it and accordingly, on 11th of September, 2011, accused persons visited at her residence at Raghunathganj Darbeshpara to have a discussion with the complainant and her husband. According to the allegation, the discussion did not yield any result and the accused persons started shouting at them. Some of the accused persons, according to the allegation, took out a pistol from their bag and put the same over the heads of the complainant and her husband. It is alleged that they assaulted the complainant and her husband with fists and slaps and also abused them and coerced the complainant to sign some papers and snatched away the suitcase containing some papers.

3. The aforesaid complaint was filed on 1st of October, 2011 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Court of another Magistrate for inquiry and disposal. On receipt of the record, the transferee Magistrate adjourned the case to 31st of October, 2011. On the said date, the complainant and her witnesses were present. The complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses namely Enamul Haque and Masud Ali were also examined. Order dated 31st of October, 2011 shows that they were examined under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). The transferee Magistrate, thereafter, adjourned the case for orders and on the adjourned date, i.e. 15th of November, 2011, he directed for issuance of summons against the accused persons for offence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

4. It is relevant here to state that in the complaint, the residence of the accused has been shown at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Petitioners challenged the order issuing process in four separate applications filed under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court, inter alia, contending that the accused persons being residents of an area outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who had issued summons, an inquiry within the meaning of Section 202 of the Code was necessary. It was also contended that only after inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate was required to come to the conclusion as to whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused persons. Said submission did not find favour with the High Court and by common order dated 19th of February, 2013, it rejected all the applications. It is against this common order that the petitioners have filed these special leave petitions.

5. Leave granted.

6. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the accused persons admittedly were residing at a place beyond the area in which the learned Magistrate exercised his ju