Kailash Gambhir, J.

1) By this order I shall decide the present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 482, 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C in short) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

2) The petitioner has challenged the correctness and legality of the order dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a complaint case filed by Respondent No. 2 herein against the petitioner and many others, for the commission of an offence punishable under section 500/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC in short). By the impugned order the learned Metropolitan Magistrate instead of passing an order on the application filed by the respondents no.2/ complainant under section 91 Cr.P.C for summoning certain documents, ordered for an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C and directed the SHO, PS Tuglak Road to conduct an investigation qua the allegations made in the aforesaid criminal complaint against the accused persons, after coming to the conclusion that the complaint of the respondent No. 2, prima facie, disclosed commission of an offence of defamation.

3) The present litigation involves a public spat between a leading Industrial group, Jindal Steel and Power limited on one hand and a Media conglomerate like ZEE on the other, with the former claiming that the Zee group attempted to extort money for airing stories against his company in coal block allocation, and the latter accroaching that Jindal Steel and Power limited with sordid designs tried to defame the respondent no. 2/ Sudhir Chaudhary, Editor, “ZEE NEWS”. It is alleged by Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary that the Jindal Steel and Power Limited by ploughing deceitful stories and making false imputations and statements against him in various public forums has tried to denigrate and disrepute his social image. Based on these connotations, legal battle began between the two parties. It appears to be a battle of straggling amour- propre, quenching personal vendetta amidst the garb of divestiture.

4) Turning to the controversy involved in the present case, certain important questions of law emerge in the present petition which can be formulated as under:

a) Whether the petitioner who has yet not been summoned as an accused can challenge any order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage, by invoking the powers under Section 482, Section 483 Cr.P.C or Article 226 &227 of the Constitution of India.

b) Whether after the amendment in Section 202 Cr.P.C, it is incumbent on the Magistrate to hold an inquiry or investigation where the accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate is exercising its jurisdiction.

c) Whether for directing an investigation to the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C, the magistrate can direct a full- fledged inquiry / investigation in the same manner as can be done by the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

d) Whether under Section 202 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate can direct the police or any other person to carry out their investigation on certain suggested lines.

5) Before I pen down the rival contentions of the parties and discuss the aforesaid issues at length, the material facts are necessary to present a composite picture of cause of action, which are stated as follows:

a. That a criminal complaint was filed by one Mr. Sudhir Chaudhary, Respondent no.2 herein against the present petitioner, Mr. Tej Kishan and 16 other persons associated with Jindal Steel and Power ltd. under Section 499, 500, 34 read with 109 of IPC seeking prosecution and conviction of the said accused persons for harming his reputation. The said case is pending adjudication before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

b. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance on the said criminal complaint under section 499 read with 34 of IPC vide order dated 03.01.2013 and thereafter, adj