Asha Arora, J. - (1.) By the instant application under Section 482 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26/7/2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bidhannagar in Complaint Case No. 885 of 2017 under Section 499, 500 and 120B IPC.
(2.) The aforesaid written complaint against the opposite parties herein was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar. By the order impugned the learned Magistrate examined under section 200 of the Code the complainant and the two witnesses present and took cognizance under section 190(1)(a) of the Code but postponed the issuance of process by invoking section 202 of the Code on the ground that "several accused persons reside beyond the jurisdiction" of the said Court. The learned Magistrate accordingly directed an investigation into the case under section 202(1) of the Code by the I/C of Bidhannagar (E) P.S. either himself or by an officer subordinate to him not below the rank of Sub-Inspector.
(3.) Referring to section 202(1) of the Code Mr. Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to impress that the words "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction" which were inserted in Section 202 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 2005 (with effect from 23/6/2006) should be read conjointly with Section 14 of the Code which would leave no room for doubt that the area mentioned in Section 202 is territorial area over which the learned Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction to decide issuance of process in a complaint case. It has further been canvassed that in view of the observation of the Supreme Court in Vijay Dhanuka and Others versus Najima Mamtaj and Others, 2015 1 SCC(Cri) 479 (corresponding to (2014)14 Supreme Court Cases 638), the inquiry as contemplated under section 202 is a part and parcel of the inquiry under section 200 of the Code which has been held by the learned Magistrate by examining the complainant and two witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in a case of the present nature investigation by the police would delay the proceeding. It has also been argued that no reason has been assigned for directing an investigation by the police instead of inquiry by the Magistrate himself. Referring to Section 178 and 179 of the Code learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these two provisions of law in the Code of Criminal Procedure are not relegated to the background on the face of the amendment to Section 202(1) of the Code. It has been argued that the "area in law is wider than the area in fact" but the provisions of section 178 and 179 have not been considered by the learned Magistrate. It has also been argued that the documents produced before the learned Magistrate if read with the provisions of Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 would not necessitate any investigation with regard to the persons involved in the commission of the offence. To buttress his argument learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Gambhirsinh R. Dekare versus Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and another, 2013 2 Supreme 211 (paragraph 18), K.A. Mathew versus K.A. Abraham, 2002 AIR(SC) 2989 (paragraph 13), Dr. Subramaniam Swamy versus Prabhakar S. Pai, 1984 CrLJ 1329 (paragraph 9) and Babita Lila and Another versus Union of India, 2016 AIR(SC) 4061 (paragraphs 72 77).;