The mandatory provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed before issuing process against the accused residing outside the jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. - The present revisional application under Section 397/401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashing of proceedings in connection with C.S. case no. 45734 of 2019 under Sections 406/506 of the Indian Penal Code, presently pending before the court of the learned 12th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

2. The opposite party no. 2 filed a written complaint against the petitioner herein and the sum and substance of the written complaint is as follows:

i) Accused petitioner is cousin brother of opposite party no. 2/ complainant who used to visit Kolkata at his place each and every month.

ii) On or about 2nd March, 2019 petitioner came to the opposite party no. 2's place and requested him to lend a sum of Rs. 60,000/- and opposite party no. 2 told the petitioner to come to his office at Kolkata -16 at 12.30 hours In the presence of colleagues of the opposite party, the opposite party paid Rs. 60,000/-to the petitioner.

iii) At the time of receiving the said amount, the petitioner promised to pay the loan amount within 15 days but when it is not paid on expiry of 15 days the opposite party requested the petitioner to repay but, the petitioner abused the opposite party no. 2 with filthy languages and threatened the opposite party no. 2 with dire consequences.

iv) On or about 22.7.2019 petitioner came to the office of the opposite party no. 2 and again threatened opposite party no. 2 with dire consequences and further threatened that in case of further demand of the said amount of Rs.60, 000/-, he will kill him and his family members.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint dated 12.9.2019, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 01.2.2020 was pleased to take cognizance of the offence and issued summon upon sole accused/petitioner as Magistrate was satisfied that prima facie case under Sections 406/506 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rahber submits that the aforesaid complaint is the counter blust to the Title Suit no. 399 of 2019 filed by the petitioner against the opposite party no. 2 and ten others, which is pending before the learned Sub-judge, Gopalganj, Bihar. In the said case, the petitioner herein prayed for declaration and demarcation of his share in the said place and also for order of stay not to alienate or to transfer the suit property during pendency of the suit. In the said suit, the opposite party no. 2 herein entered appearance on 19.6.2018.

5. He further submits that the present criminal proceeding has been initiated on the basis of false fabricated and concocted allegation in order to force him to withdraw said Title suit no. 399 of 2019. The present criminal complaint has also been filed to harass, disturb and for creating pressure upon the petitioner. On 22.7.2019, the petitioner was suffering from various illness and was bedridden and the allegation that on that day, he came to Kolkata to the office of complainant is baseless. At no point of time, the petitioner borrowed money from opposite party no. 2. After filing aforesaid Title Suit no. 399 of 2019 the relation of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 became strained and for which the complaint case has been filed by complainant only to harass the petitioner and in order to enjoy more than his share in the scheduled mentioned property of the suit.

6. The petitioner further submits that the averments made in the complaint case even if considered to be true in its entirety it does not at all make out the case of criminal breach of trust or criminal intimidation as required to constitute offence under Section 406/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The whole dispute is rooted from the aforesaid Title Suit which emanates from a civil dispute and no criminality involves in the issue and the said criminal case has been foisted upon the petitioner to settle the civil dispute under duress.

7. It is further submitted that learned Magistrat