R.P.NAGRATH, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of complaint No. 288 of 2008 and order dated 10.07.2008 (Annexure P -1) of the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class issuing process for offences under Sections 417 and 418 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate observed as under: - ''The averments of the complaint that the accused got convinced the complainant that accused was a genuine dealer and would make payment on receipt of invoices, have been got supported and corroborated by CW -1 to 3. There is prima facie material to show that the accused in collusion with each other with their dishonest intention got installed the machine from the complainant company under the belief that the accused were genuine dealers and they would make the payment on receipt of invoices, but the accused with their common intention have dishonestly committed cheating upon the complainant company by not paying the amount of raised bills Ex. CW 1/5 to Ex. CW1/9. At this stage the critical examination of the evidence led on behalf of the complainant company is not required. Rather, it has to be seen whether there exists sufficient material to show prima facie that the accused had cheated the complainant company by getting installed the sorting and grading machine under the belief that accused are genuine dealer and they would make the payment of raised bills to the complainant company. In similar case Rajesh Bajaj Versus State NCT of Delhi 199 (2) RCR (Criminal) 160, Hon'ble Apex Court held that offence of cheating prima facie was made out. Here, in present complaint, the complainant company has shown prima facie the commission of offence of cheating by the accused with their common intention by getting installed the sorting and grading machine from complainant under the belief that the accused are genuine dealer and would make the payment for the work done with the machine by the complainant company. Hence, I find prima facie commission of offence punishable under Sections 417 and 418 IPC. ''
(2.) LEARNED senior advocate for the petitioners inter alia contends that petitioners are residing beyond the jurisdiction of learned Magistrate Faridabad and the summoning order dated 10.07.2008 (Annexure P -1) has been passed without compliance of the procedure prescribed in Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned senior advocate for respondent No. 2 -complainant has not disputed the above contention raised by learned petitioners' counsel. There is rather nothing to indicate that the trial Court was alive to the requirement of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C., before passing the impugned order.
(3.) IN National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another, (2013) 2 SCC 488, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - 10. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment Act 2005) and the following words were inserted: ''and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction, '' The notes on clauses for the above -mentioned amendment read as follow: ''False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that the innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend Subsection (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. '' ;