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. 623 of 2019
Decided On : 26-07-2023
CRIMINAL REVISION - SECTION 202 CR.P.C. - ENQUIRY BEFORE ISSUING PROCESS - APPLICABILITY - JURISDICTION - MAGISTRATE TO APPLY MIND AND CONDUCT INQUIRY BEFORE ISSUING PROCESS AGAINST ACCUSED RESIDING OUTSIDE JURISDICTION - FAILURE TO CONDUCT INQUIRY - ORDER ISSUING PROCESS QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the order of the Magistrate issuing process against him in a criminal complaint under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the Magistrate failed to conduct an inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing the process, despite the petitioner residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Magistrate failed to apply his mind and conduct an inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing the process against the petitioner, who resided outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments which emphasized the importance of the Magistrate conducting an inquiry to determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, especially when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the Magistrate was required to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing process against the petitioner who resided outside the jurisdiction of the Court? 2. Whether the Magistrate applied his mind and conducted the necessary inquiry before issuing the process?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. mandates the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation to determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, especially when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The purpose of this inquiry is to prevent the harassment of innocent persons by unscrupulous persons filing false complaints against them. The Magistrate must apply his mind and consider the allegations in the complaint, the statements of the complainant and witnesses, and any other relevant material before issuing the process.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the order of the Magistrate issuing process against the petitioner and directed the Magistrate to hear the matter afresh, duly complying with the provisions of Section 202(2) of the Cr.P.C. 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 C.S. No. 38724 of 2018 under Section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code started pursuant to the complaint lodged by M/s. Jaypee Engg. & Hydraulic Equipment Co. Ltd. (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, Indranil Das and the witness namely Shekhar Agarwal are present with their Ld. Advocate.
Indranil Das and Shekhar Agarwal 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 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. A
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'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....
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 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....
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....
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
