Mr. C.T. Ravikumar, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikkara in CMP. No.408/2012 in C.C. No.107/2012. At the very outset, I may state that it is the non-reflection of the procedures followed by the learned Magistrate, at least in succinct, in the said order that paved way to this, otherwise avoidable, legal proceedings. An encapsulation of facts is necessary for the disposal of this case as also for understanding the raison deter for the said remark.

2. The revision petitioners are arraigned as accused in the said case. The second respondent herein filed a private complaint viz., C.M.P. No.40/2012 alleging commission of offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the revision petitioners. That was taken on file as C.C. No.107/2012 by the learned Magistrate and, accordingly, ordered to issue summons under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the attendance of the revision petitioners as per the impugned order.

3. The revision petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate without conducting an enquiry by either himself or by causing an investigation by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not sufficient ground exists for proceeding with the complaint. It is also contended that being persons residing outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, it was mandatory to conduct such an enquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Taking into account the said specific contention of the revision petitioners that no enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted despite they being residents of a place beyond the area in which the learned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, this Court issued notice and stayed all further proceedings in C.C. No.107 of 2012 as per order in Crl.M.A. No.3729 of 2012 in the captioned revision petition. Pursuant to the receipt of notice, the second respondent appeared through counsel. The learned counsel for the second respondent assertively submitted that an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was, in fact, conducted by the learned Magistrate before ordering issuance of summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, this Court called for a report from the learned Magistrate, through the Registry. Consequently, such a report was received. It is evident from the said report that CMP. No.408 of 2012 was filed by the second respondent herein on 6.2.2012 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the revision petitioners and evidence from the complainant and two witnesses were taken oath as part of the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. on that day itself. Thereupon, on 14.2.2012, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.107 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in view of the enquiry conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. As already noticed hereinbefore, the core contention of the revision petitioners is that the impugned order was passed by the learned Magistrate without conducting an enquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. though it is mandatory to conduct such an enquiry in view of the fact that they are residing at a place beyond the area of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. In view of the aforesaid report, the said contention will not survive any further. When faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order is not a speaking order inasmuch as no reason has been explicitly given thereunder. Obviously, it is an order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. ordering for issuance of process. But the question is whether section 204 mandates the learned Magistrate to explicitly state the reason for ordering issuance of summons. That question is no more res integra in view of the Apex Court's deci