Three petitioners from Andhra Pradesh (now Telangana/Seemandhra) sought quashing of a cognizance order passed by a Patna Magistrate in a complaint case alleging extortion (Section 384 IPC) and intentional insult (Section 504 IPC). The complainant alleged that the accused, who were business associates in a telecom company, demanded Rs. 50 lakhs as 'rangdari' and threatened to kill him. The petitioners argued that the Magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C. — which requires an inquiry before issuing process when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction — and that the essential ingredients of Sections 383 and 504 IPC were not made out. The Patna High Court examined the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the mandatory nature of Section 202 Cr.P.C. (post-2005 amendment), relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj (2014) 14 SCC 638 and Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 435. The judgment (as reproduced) was still in the course of reasoning at the point the text ends, but the court was clearly inclined to find that non-compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. vitiated the cognizance order.