What would be the meaning of ‘inquiry’ as provided under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been explained by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another, , which reads as under:
“8. We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the C.J.M. Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the C.J.M. Ahmednagar. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing the process.
9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court. The scope of enquiry under this Section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not. Investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient grounds for him to proceed further. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint:
(i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court
(ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and
(iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.
10. Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was amended by the Cr.P.C. (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 sub-section (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.”
The amendment has come into force w.e.f. 23.6.2006 vide notification No. S.O. 923 (E) dt. 21.6.2006.”
 In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Bank of Oman (supra), it can very well be said that scope of inquiry or investigation as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code is limited to find out prima facie case from the point of view of the complainant, on the material placed by the complainant, to record satisfaction before issuing process. Investigation under Section 202 of the Code is different from the investigation under Section 156 of the Code. If Magistrate records his satisfaction about existence of prima facie case having discussed entire material made available before him, then it can very well be said that he has held inquiry as required under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Another Vs. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Others, , has held that accused shall not be heard by the learned Magistrate at the pre-summoning stage. Therefore, order of the Magistrate issuing notice to the accused – at the pre-summoning stage and thereafter issuing the non-bailable warrant is absolutely without jurisdiction.
Therefore, petition is allowed. Impugned order issuing non-bailable warrant is hereby set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to proceed afresh with the complaint strictly as directed by this Court, vide judgment dated 6.8.2013, rendered in C-482 No. 304 of 2009. Let copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Judicial Officers posted in the State of Uttarakhand for information.
An inquiry under Juvenile ActÂ
The word ‘inquiry’ has not been defined in this Act. It has been said in the last clause of Section 2 that all words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Criminal Procedure Code shall have the meanings assigned to them in that Code. In Section 2(g) of the Criminal Procedure Code the word ‘inquiry’ has been defined as meaning an inquiry conducted under Criminal Procedure Code by a Magistrate or a Court. So, normally it can be argued that in Section 3 of the Act the inquiry means an inquiry under Criminal Procedure Code. If this meaning is accepted then it will mean that Section 3 says that if an inquiry is initiated under Criminal Procedure Code against a juvenile then that inquiry may be continued even if the person ceases to be juvenile. But under the Act an inquiry against a juvenile has to be initiated and continued under the Act and not under Criminal Procedure Code. So, inquiry in Section 3 should mean an inquiry under the Act and not under Criminal Procedure Code. There is no difficulty in placing this meaning because in definition clause it has been said that unless the context otherwise requires the definition given in that Section will have effect. Here as said above, the context requires otherwise. So the word ‘inquiry’ in Section 3 would mean an inquiry under the Act and not an inquiry under the Criminal Procedure Code as defined by Section 2(g) of the Act.
u/s 5 of the Act, State Government constitutes a Juvenile Court. Section 7 says that a Juvenile Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all proceedings under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provides that where a Juvenile Court has not been constituted the powers conferred on the Juvenile Court shall be exercised in that area by Judicial Magistrate of I Class or some other functionaries mentioned in that Section.
Then we have Section 8. It says that when any Magistrate not empowered to act as a Juvenile Court is of the opinion that a person brought before him under any provision of the Act is a juvenile, he shall record such opinion and forward the juvenile and record of the proceeding to the competent authority having jurisdiction. The competent authority then has to act as if the juvenile was originally produced before it.
According to Section 2(d), ‘competent authority’ means a Juvenile Court. Where no Juvenile Court is there, then it includes any Court empowered under Sub-section (2) of Section 7 to exercise of the powers of Juvenile Court. Thus, the competent authority is one which has power to act as Juvenile Court:
Section 32 provides what a competent authority has to do when a juvenile is brought before it either originally or on reference u/s 8. It says that when it appears to the competent authority that the person brought before it is a juvenile then it has to make due inquiry as to the age of that person and for that purpose it has to take such evidence as may be necessary and then it has to record a finding that the person is juvenile or not stating his age as nearly as may be. That age is deemed to be a true age of the person.
Section 37 provides appeals against an order made by a competent authority. It lies to the Court of Session. It means that if one is aggrieved by an order of the competent authority determining the age, he can appeal to the Court of Session. Finally u/s 38 the revision lies to High Court.
If a person is held to be juvenile then u/s 20 the Juvenile Court can hold an inquiry, the procedure of which is given in Section 39 and it can pass any order provided in Section 21.