Alok Singh, J. - (1.) THE only grievance in the present petition that the learned Magistrate, while passing the summoning order summoning the accused -petitioner to face trial on a private complaint for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, failed to hold enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
(2.) LEARNED Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Prem Kaur Vs. Balwinder Kaur reported in, 2009 (2) Crl.CC 490 and in the matter of S.K. Bhownmik Vs. S.K.Arora reported in, 2007 (4) Crl.CC, 839 and has argued that when accused is not residing with the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, Magistrate is bound to hold enquiry or to direct the investigation before issuing the summoning order as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 4. On being asked what does the enquiry means as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C, learned counsel for the petitioner states that enquiry means something more than recording the statement of the complainant under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 5. This Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh and others Vs. Pawanjit Kaur (Criminal Misc.M.No.34031 of 2011) decided on 16.11.2011, while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer Vs. Videocon International Limited and others reported in 2008(2) R.C.R (Crl),38 has held that if Magistrate has examined the complainant's evidence carefully before forming an opinion that there is sufficient material and ground to summon the accused then requirement of inquiry stands satisfied. 6. In the present case, learned Magistrate has observed as under: - From the perusal of material available on record, it transpires that the accused issued a cheque bearing No.859774 dated 8.5.2008 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ - drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. Branch Sangrur for discharge of his liabilities towards the complainant. The complainant presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment but it has been returned un -paid with remarks "Drawer's signature differs" vide memo dated 21.5.2008 got issued a notice of demand under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act to accused but the accused despite receipt of notice, has failed to make payment within the stipulated period of 15 days. As such, a prime -facie case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the accused. Accordingly, the accused is ordered to be summoned to far trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for 13.7.2009 on filing of requisite charges and copy of complaint. Dasti summons of accused be also given to complainant on request. Perusal of the impugned order dated 23.9.2008 as reproduced hereinabove is thus clear that Magistrate has examined the statement of the complainant as well as entire material before forming opinion that there is justification to summon the accused to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, Magistrate has held enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Thus, no interference is called for. Petition devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.;