JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceeding in C. Case No. 1240 of 2018 under Sections 420/465/468/467/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barrackpore, including order dated 05.03.2019, whereby the Learned Magistrate issued process in the instant case.

2. The petitioners have authorized Mr. Raju Dutta, son of Ashok Dutta, working for gain at Rameswara Group, G.B. Rameswara Apartment, 19A, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700 020, residing at 1/5B, Manohar Pukur, 2nd Lane, Kolkata – 700029, P.S. -Rabindra Sarobar, Special power of attorney/authorization dated 06.12.2019, for the sole purpose of filing the instant application.

3. The petitioners case is that the Opposite Party No. 2 has filed a written complaint against the petitioners alleging offence under Sections 420/465/468/467/471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code relating some landed property by forgery and fraudulent deeds.

4. Admittedly the petitioners are residents of Kolkata.

5. The Opposite Party/Complainant is a resident of Titagarh, Kolkata – 700 122, which falls under the District Judgeship of 24 Parganas (North).

6. The Complaint case is pending before the court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Barrackpore, under the District Judgeship of 24 Parganas (North).

7. Though the address of the complainant is shown as, Titagarh, Kolkata, the Court at Barrackpore, is under District 24 Parganas (North), a separate and independent district, from Kolkata.

8. In such a case, the application of the provision under Section 202 Cr.P.C. becomes mandatory.

9. The Order dated 05.03.2019, under revision is as follows:-

C – 1240 05/03/19: Perused the petition of complaint, statements on S/A supported by an affidavit and the documents produced before me.

Considered.

There is existence of sufficient ground to summon the accused persons for facing the charge u/s 420/465/467/468/471/120B of IPC. Issue process accordingly as per Section 204(1) Cr.P.C.

Complaint to put requisites at once.

Fix 08.07.2019 for S/R and appearance.

Sd/-

J.M. 2nd Court, Barrackpore

10. Though one witness has also been examined namely Ujjal Goswami, he has not stated anything about the incident as stated in the petition of complaint. His evidence is as follows:-

C-1240/18

“S/A of Ujjal Goswami, the witness examined u/s 200 Cr.P.C. on 13.12.2018:-

I know Triptimoy Paul.

I know he had filed a case.

I had received a power of attorney from Sreejhan Roy, Debu Roy and rest of their brothers.

The power of attorney had been signed by all signatories.

I pray for order.

Read over and explained by me.

Sd/-

J.M. 2nd Court, Barrackpore.

The said deposition clearly is not/cannot be a part of the inquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C as nothing has been stated by the witness regarding the case/dispute.

11. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 has relied upon the following judgment:-

In Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 638, on March 27, 2014, held:-

“11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process “in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction” and thereafter to either inquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not.

12. The words “and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction” were inserted by Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are