Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Bikas Das & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal & Anr. – Respondents
C.R.R. 4240 of 2013 With CRAN 4 of 2017 (Old CRAN 3719 of 2017)
Decided on : 08-08-2023
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 202 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - POSTPONEMENT OF ISSUE OF PROCESS - INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION - JURISDICTION - ACCUSED RESIDING BEYOND JURISDICTION - MANDATORY INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION - FAILURE TO CONDUCT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a criminal revisional application seeking to quash the proceedings and orders in C.R. Case No. 106 of 2013 under Sections 406/420/468/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur, South Dinajpur. The petitioners contended that they were permanent residents of Belda, West Medinipur, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Learned ACJM, Gangarampur, South Dinajpur.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had mechanically passed the impugned order without applying judicious and empirical discretion and reasoning. The Magistrate had failed to comply with the provisions mandatorily stipulated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. No enquiry either through the Court itself or an investigation through the police officer was directed prior to the issuance of summons or process to the impediment and detriment of the petitioners as well as contravention of the statutory provisions.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was required to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing process against the accused who resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate? 2. Whether the Magistrate had complied with the provisions of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to defer the issuance of process against the accused and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person whichever mode and manner he deemed appropriate in order to determine any sufficient ground to proceed with in deciding the case. 2. The Amending Act No. 25 of 2005 directed mandatory postponement of issuance of process where the accused resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revisional application in part and set aside the orders passed by the Magistrate. The court directed the Magistrate to comply with the provisions mandated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. through proper inquiry to be conducted as the accused petitioners resided beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Ld. Magistrate and pass orders.
JUDGMENT :
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
1. The instant criminal revisional application is filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceeding being C.R. Case No. 106 of 2013 under Sections 406/420/468/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as also the orders passed therein in connection with the said proceeding, pending before the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangarampur, South Dinajpur.
2. The revisional application filed by the petitioners precisely stated them to be the permanent residents of Belda, Sabuj Pally, P.O.-Belda, P.S.-Belda, District-Paschim Medinipur which was beyond the jurisdiction of Learned ACJM, Gangarampur, South Dinajpur.
3. On the basis of a complaint filed opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code before the Learned A.C.J.M., Gangarampur, South Dinajpur, C.R. Case No. 106/2013 was initiated against the petitioners for commission of offences punishable under Sections 406/420/468/471/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. It was further contended that the mother of the petitioner no.1 filed a complaint before the Belda Police Station accusing the opposite party no. 2 to have kidnapped and wrongfully restrained petitioner no. 1 who went missing since 3rd April, 2013. On 4th April, 2013 at 11 PM the mother of the petitioner no. 1 stated to have received a phone call from the petitioner no. 1 narrating of having been kidnapped and wrongfully restrained further stating that the opposite party demanded a sum of Rs. 36 lakhs as ransom by 5th April, 2013. Based on such complaint Belda Police Station Case No. 82/13 dated 5.4.2013 was registered under Sections 363/365/364A of the Indian Penal Code. The statement of the mother of the petitioner no. 1 was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, 1973.
5. It was further stated that the opposite party no. 2 suppressed the incident of kidnapping of petitioner no. 1 for illegal gratification and filed the instant case as a counter blast falsely implicating all the petitioners.
6. The opposite party no. 2 lodged a complaint stating that the accused/petitioner no. 1 representing himself as “Administer Finance Secretary of Krishi Bikash Shilpa Kendra,’’ established an office at the house of one Dijen Burman of Kaldighi, under Gangarampur Police Station. The accused persons being aided and abetted by each other further represented that Krishi Bikash Shilpa Kendra would recruit people in casual posts and they would also provide them jobs under the Central Government. The complainant further stated on or about 18th March, 2010, the accused persons took a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-from him on such promise and also collected Rs.1,50,00,000/-from 50 other persons in the similar manner. The accused persons further issued appointment letters in favour of certain persons which on subsequent clarification from the concerned office, were revealed to be forged. On being confronted the accused persons promised to return the money but ultimately delayed and/or denied to return the same on one pretext or the other.
7. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Gangarampur, South Dinajpur, took cognizance of the aforesaid complaint submitted by the opposite party no. 2 on 30th May, 2013 and subsequently exercising the power under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. upon examining the opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. issued process against the petitioners under Sections 420/406/468/109 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. states as follows:-
(a) if a public servant acting or-purporting to act in the discharge of his o
The Magistrate must conduct an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process against accused residing outside jurisdiction to prevent harassment through false complaints.
The Magistrate's duty to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing process against an accused residing outside the court's jurisdiction is mandatory and not merely directory, and the M....
A Magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing process against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court to prevent the harassment of i....
The mandatory requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. before issuing a summoning order, especially when the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before issuing process against an accused re....
The mandatory provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be followed before issuing process against the accused residing outside the jurisdiction.
The inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction, and summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter requiring the applica....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
