Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Binod Chandra Sahoo – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
CRR No. 624 of 2019
Decided On : 26-07-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - Section 202 - Cognizance - Issuance of Process - Magistrate's Duty to Inquire - Applicability to Non-Local Accused - Mandatory Nature of Inquiry - Application of Mind - Compliance with Legal Provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a non-local accused, challenged the issuance of process against him in a criminal proceeding initiated by the opposite party for alleged offenses under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate had not conducted the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before issuing process, as required in cases where the accused resides outside the court's jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the petitioner's revision petition and set aside the Magistrate's orders issuing process and bailable warrant of arrest. The Court held that the Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 202 CrPC by not conducting an inquiry before issuing process against the petitioner, who resided outside the court's jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was required to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing process against the petitioner, who resided outside the court's jurisdiction? 2. Whether the Magistrate's failure to conduct such an inquiry rendered the issuance of process illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 202 CrPC mandates that a Magistrate, before issuing process against an accused residing outside the court's jurisdiction, shall postpone the issuance of process and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made for the purpose of deciding whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. 2. The Court emphasized that this inquiry is mandatory and not merely directory, as it is aimed at preventing innocent persons from being harassed by false complaints filed against them in far-off places. 3. The Court further held that the Magistrate must apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint and the statements recorded during the inquiry to determine whether there is a prima facie sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 4. The Court stated that the Magistrate's order issuing process must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts and the law applicable to the case and that there must be sufficient indication of such application of mind.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the Magistrate's orders issuing process and bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and directed the Magistrate to hear the matter afresh, duly complying with the provisions of Section 202(2) CrPC, and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of the Criminal Proceeding being CS No. 50251/2018 under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code started pursuant to the complaint lodged by M/s. United Steel Corporation (the opposite party no. 2) herein pending disposal before the learned 8th Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta.
2. It is submitted that the authorized representative of opposite party no. 2 was examined under Section 200 Cr.P.C. on 31.10.2018 together with one Shekhar Agarwal by the learned Trial Court and it reveals from the initial deposition that the opposite party no. 2 has not been able to make out prima facie case against the petitioner even then the learned Court was pleased to issue process against the petitioner in most mechanical manner without even applying the judicious mind.
3. The learned Magistrate has issued process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code without exhausting the statutory obligation under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code whereas admittedly the petitioner resides outside the jurisdiction of the learned trial court. As such order of cognizance suffers from perennial irregularity apparently visible.
4. From the materials on record, it appears that the parties to this case have a business transaction dispute. The opposite party no. 2 has filed the complaint in this case. The only address of the petitioner/accused in the petition of complaint is Proprietor of M/s Bindu Industries, At P/o Chauliaganj, Town-Cuttack 753004, Odisha.
5. The order issuing process, dated 28.08.2018, is as follows:
Order date: 28.08.2018
Today is fixed for S/A. Today the representative of the complainant namely, Shekhar Agarwal and the witness namely Indranil Das are present with their Ld. Advocate.
Shekhar Agarwal and Indranil Das as PW-1 and PW-2 have been initially examined on S.A u/s 200 Cr.P.C. It appears that the allegation u/s 406/420 of IPC has been established prima facie against the accused person.
Issue summons at once u/s 204 Cr.P.C. upon the accused at once.
To 10.10.2018 for S/R.
Complainant is directed to file requisites at once.
D/C
Sd/-
M.M. 8th Court, Calcutta.
6. Vide order dated 10.10.2018 the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.
7. In the present circumstances, the following judgments are relevant:
“26. Complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and enquiry contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and issuance of process:
Under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on presentation of the complaint by an individual, the Magistrate is required to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Thereafter, on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the witnesses examined, the Magistrate has to get himself satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and on such satisfaction, the Magistrate may direct for issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The purpose of the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to determine whether a prima facie case is made out and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
27. The scope of enquiry under this section is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. At the stage o
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 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 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 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....
Section 192 Cr.P.C deals with making over of cases to Magistrates by Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of an offence.
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
