Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Mr. Indrajit Adhikari, Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Mr. Anjan Dutta, Mr. Anand Keshari, Mr. Amitava Ray, Mr. Ganesh Jajodia, Mr. Rohit Jalan, Mr. Sharequl Haque, Mr. Ozair Elahi, Mrs. A. Ghosh Mondal, Mr. Soumya Nag, Mr. Nilay Sengupta, Ms. Swati Agarwal
For the Opposite-Party : Ms. Rituparna De Ghose, Ms. Joyti Singh, Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh, Mr. Koushik Kundu, Mr. Satudru Lahiri, Ms. Mrinali Majumder
For the Union of India : Mr. Kaushik Chanda, Addl. Solicitor General, Ms. Rajasshree Venkat Kundalia

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

1. The amendment to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. introduced by the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, explicitly makes it mandatory for a Magistrate to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 before issuing process against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The use of the word "shall" indicates the mandatory nature of this inquiry (!) (!) .

2. The purpose of the inquiry under Section 202 is to scrutinize the allegations in the complaint, prevent unnecessary harassment of innocent persons, and determine whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. This inquiry involves examining witnesses for the limited purpose of assessing the existence of a prima facie case (!) (!) (!) .

3. The nature of the inquiry is limited; it is not a trial but a preliminary step to decide whether the case merits issuance of process. The inquiry may include examining witnesses or directing investigation, but it is confined to ascertaining whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed (!) (!) (!) .

4. Non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 before issuing process against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction can invalidate the proceedings. In such cases, the matter should be remitted to the Magistrate for compliance with the procedural requirement, and the process can be reissued after proper inquiry (!) (!) .

5. Objections related to non-compliance with the amended provisions of Section 202 can be raised at any stage before the issuance of process, but raising such objections after participation in the trial or after proceedings are further advanced is generally not permissible. Timely objections are essential to ensure procedural correctness (!) (!) .

6. In cases involving offences under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the amended provisions of Section 202 are not mandatorily applicable before issuing summons to an accused residing outside the jurisdiction. The procedural scheme under these provisions is designed to expedite proceedings and prevent unnecessary technicalities (!) (!) (!) .

7. The object of the amendments is to prevent false complaints and harassment of persons residing at distant locations. The legislative intent emphasizes the importance of conducting a proper inquiry before summoning an accused who resides beyond the Court's territorial jurisdiction, using the word "shall" as a mandatory directive (!) (!) (!) .

8. The procedural provisions are to be interpreted in a manner that promotes substantial justice, ensuring that procedural irregularities do not lead to miscarriage of justice unless they cause prejudice or deny a fair hearing. Violations that do not result in prejudice are generally considered directory (!) (!) .

9. The scope of inquiry under Section 202 is confined to ascertaining the truth of the allegations and whether there is sufficient ground to proceed, without delving into detailed trial proceedings. The inquiry is a screening process to prevent frivolous or vexatious cases (!) (!) .

10. The amendments aim to streamline proceedings, protect innocent parties from harassment, and ensure that criminal process is initiated only when there is a prima facie basis for proceeding against the accused (!) (!) .

Please let me know if you require further elaboration or specific legal advice based on these points.