The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. before issuing summons, especially in cases where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.04.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in Complaint Case No. 1171 of 2011 whereby he has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(vi) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short 'the Act') and summoned the petitioner to face trial.

3. A typed complaint was filed on 19.12.2011 by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 Bahadur Manjhi of village-Sonpai, P.S. and District-Jamui in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui stating inter alia that he is a labourer and occasionally works at Dhamna Kothi. On 18.12.2011, at 8:00 a.m., the petitioner-accused Kumar Dhirendra Pratap Singh, who being relative of the owner of Dhamna Kothi frequently used to visit his place asked the complainant to take his bag to Tempo stand. On his request, he took his bag with him and when he reached near Zila Parishad office, he found one cycle rickshaw standing there. Thus, he asked the accused to take his bag on rickshaw, as the bag was quite heavy and demanded some money for tea etc., as it was extremely cold. However, the accused started abusing him by calling his caste name 'mushar' and said that his ancestors have served him and he will also have to serve and carry his bag. On protest made by him, the accused assaulted him with shoe on his face and forcefully took him to tempo stand with bag on his head and did not pay him a single farthing and abused him at the tempo stand also.

4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui made over the complaint case to the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamui in exercise of power conferred under Section 192(1) of the Cr.P.C., fixing 22.12.2011, as the next date. On 22.12.2011, the complainant of the case was examined on oath. Apart from the complainant, witnesses to the complaint, namely Sigheshwar Paswan and Gorelal Singh were also examined by the learned Magistrate, whereafter, vide impugned order dated 13.04.2012, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and summoned the petitioner to face trial.

5. The relevant part of the order dated 13.04.2012 is reproduced hereunder:-

13-04-2012 & okn iqdkjk x;kA ifjoknh dh vksj ls odkyru gkftj fn;k x;kA oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk mifLFkr gq,A laKku ds fcUnq ij fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk x;kA vfHkys[k ij ifjoknh dk 'kiFk ij c;ku rFkk ifjoknh dks miyC/k izLrqr tkap lk{kh la[;k 1 & flgsa'oj ikloku 2 & xksjsyky flag ds tkWp lk{l dk v/;;u fd;kA ifjoknh dk dFku gS fd ifjokn i= esa ukfer vfHk;qDr us mlls vVSph <qyok;k ,oa ifjoknh ds dgus ij fd fjDlk esa pys tkb;s] ifjoknh dks xkyh xykSp fd;k] ekjihV fd;kA ifjoknh dks dgk x;k fd rqEgkjs cki&nknk us lc fnu csxkjh fd;k gS rqEgsa Hkh djuk gksxkA tkWp lkf{k;ksa usa mlds dFku ds leFkZu djrs gq, dgk gS fd ifjoknh dks lkyk eqlgj] dgdj xkyh xykSp fd;k x;k gSA ifjoknh ,ao tkWp lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; ifjokn i= ds voyksdu ds i'pkr~ U;k;ky; ikrk gS fd ifjokn i= esa ukfer vfHk;qDr ds fo:) Hkk-na-fo- dh /kkjk 323@504 ,ao vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr vf/k- dh /kkjk 3¼Vh½¼vi½¼x½ esa izFke n`"V;k ekeyk lgh izfrr gksrk gSA /kkjkvksa esa vfxze dk;Zokgh fd;s tkus dk vk/kkj miyC/k gS vr% ifjoknh dks funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og ,d ekg ds vanj jftLVMZ Mkd ds lkFk lEeu dk visf{kr nkf[ky djsaA visf{kr nkf[ky fd, tkus ij dk;kZy; lEeu fuxZr djsaA fnukad 19-5-12 dks izLrqr djsaA

g-@v-

U;k- (emphasis mine)

6. Assailing the impugned order dated 13.04.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire prosecution case is malicious one. He submitted that the complainant has been set up by one of his relatives to frame him in a false and frivolous case. He contended that his relat