ORDER :

The petitioners filed petitions under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., in C.M.P. Nos. 925, 1665 and 1666 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi. The petitions were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 27.12.2019. Against that order, the petitioner have preferred these Criminal Revision Cases.

2. On the side of the petitioners, it is stated that two private complaints were filed by the complainant/first respondent under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., for an alleged offence under Sections 34, 120(b), 499, 500 and 503 of IPC and the cases were taken on file as C.C.No.22 and 23 of 2017 respectively. The petitioners preferred a petition in Crl.O.P.No.11759 of 2017 before this Court and the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal order, the petitioners filed a Special Leave Petition in SLP.No.2432 of 2019.

3. Though Special Leave Petition was dismissed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given liberty to the petitioner by observing as follows: “all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open”. As the petitioners are entitle to contest their case, they filed these petitions under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

4. All the petitioners are residing outside the jurisdiction of Lalgudi. Only their office is within the jurisdiction of Lalgudi. Under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., the accused must be residing within the jurisdiction of particular learned Judicial Magistrate. Without considering this aspect, the learned Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate has directed investigation to be made by the police officer to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The author of the article was not impleaded in the complaint and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Birla Buildings Limited v. Birla Corporation Limited reported in (2019) 16 SCC 610, wherein it is stated as follows:

“14. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant discharged the initial burden placed upon it by adducing pre-summoning evidence by examining two witnesses and based upon the averments in the complaint and the statement of witnesses Shri Samir Ganguly and P.B. Dinesh, the Magistrate satisfied himself that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding agianst the accused and the High Court rightly held that there was no irregularity in the procedure followed by the Magistrate in issuing process against the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that respondents 1 to 9 have produced the documents before the Company Law Board and the respondents 12 to 16 have filed Document 1 Internal Audit Report which are highly confidential documents and having not disclosed the source for the accusation/possession of the documents, prima facie case in dishonest removal of the documents have been made out and the Magistrate rightly found that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the respondent-accused and took the cognizance of the offences under Sections 380, 411 and 120-B of IPC.

51. Based on the allegations in the complaint and the statements of Shri Samir Ganguly and P.B. Dinesh, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and directed issuance of summons to respondents 1 to 16. As pointed out earlier, as per Notes on Clause 19, the object behind the amendment to Section 202 Cr.P.C., is to ensure that innocent persons who are residing as far off places are not harassed by unscrupulous persons. The amendment, therefore, makes it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond the jurisdiction, the Magistrate has to enquire the case either himself or direct investigation to be made by the police officer and is required to apply his mind and record his satisfaction with reasons”

6. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the learned Judicial Mag