Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 9th October 2009 passed by learned MM in complaint case number 108 of 2008.

2. A complaint was filed against the petitioner who is a resident of Noida adjoining Delhi falling in U.P under Sections 420/406/120B IPC and the learned MM after recording pre-summoning evidence and appreciating documents filed by the complainant came to conclusion that the petitioner and his co-accused entered into a criminal conspiracy and cheated complainant company of several crore of rupees. The learned MM summoned the petitioner and other co-accused under Section 420 IPC.

3. The only ground pressed during arguments of this petition assailing order of learned MM is that the order was bad in law in view of the fact that the trial court failed to comply with the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C whereunder the trial court was supposed to postpone the issue of process and was to conduct an inquiry either himself or direct investigation to be made by the police officials into the allegations since the accused was residing at a place beyond the area in which the trial court had jurisdiction.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that recording of complainant's evidence on oath and evidence of witnesses was required to be done by the Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the Magistrate after recording complainant's evidence can issue process in respect of accused person living within the jurisdiction. However, if the accused was living beyond the jurisdiction of the court i.e. accused was not living within Delhi, then in view of Section 202 Cr.P.C mere recording of complainant's evidence and witnesses was not sufficient and an inquiry was required to be conducted mandatorily under the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C before issuing process.

5. Section 202 of Cr.P.C reads as under:

"202. Postponement of issue of process. (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit,[ and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction,] postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,-

(a) Where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions or

(b) Where the complaint has not been made by a court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Court on an offer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant."

6. The portion in para (1) was introduced by the Parliament by Act No.25 of 2005 and came into effect on 23rd June, 2006. The purpose for making this amendment as stated in the noting on the Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill reads as under:

"Clause 24 -- False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Ma