CRIMINAL PET IT ION No. 9805 of 2011 · Andhra Pradesh High Court

The petitioner/Accused No. 2 approached this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings initiated against it in C.C. No. 874 of 2011 on the file of the XI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The offences alleged against the petitioner and others are punishable under Sections 418, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B I.P.C. Based on the protest petition filed by the 1st respondent invoking the provisions of Section 200 Cr.P.C., the present complaint was taken on file by the learned Magistrate. After arguing for some time, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Sri R. Raghunandan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the amendment caused to Section 202 Cr.P.C., any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance, if the accused person is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, may postpone the issue of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner is residing outside jurisdiction of learned Magistrate. Hence, the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad is directed to conduct an enquiry by invoking the provision under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and decide whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the case or not. With the above direction, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. However, the presence of petitioner/Accused No.2 before trial Court dispensed with. 2 nd December 2011 -------------------------------- JUST ICE RAJA EL ANGO