SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 14

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Pradip Kumar Bardhan and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Another – Respondents
C.R.R. No. 1158 of 2023
Decided On : 06-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Soumya Subhra Ray, Bibek Chatterjee, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Paramita Sahu, Pallab Kanjilal, Susmita Saha.
For the Respondent: Abhinaba Dan

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.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 200 and 202 - Quashing of proceedings - The learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences without complying with mandatory provisions of Section 202, as the accused resided outside jurisdiction - The order was set aside for not conducting an inquiry as required by law. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Cognizance - The Magistrate must apply his mind to the allegations and conduct an inquiry before issuing process against accused residing beyond jurisdiction - The requirement of inquiry is mandatory to prevent harassment through false complaints. (Paras 30-36)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the cognizance taken by the Magistrate in a complaint case, arguing that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 was not conducted as the accused resided outside the jurisdiction. The Magistrate only examined the complainant under Section 200.

Findings of Court:
The order of the Magistrate was set aside as it did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 202, requiring an inquiry before issuing process against the accused.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Magistrate complied with Section 202 Cr.P.C. and whether the order of cognizance was valid given the jurisdictional constraints.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the Magistrate must conduct an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused resides outside jurisdiction, to ensure there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against them. The failure to do so renders the order invalid.

Result: The order dated 12.05.2022 was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh hearing in compliance with Section 202.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of the proceeding being C.R. Case No. 107 of 2019 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tamluk at Purba Medinipur.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order dated 17.06.2022 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged in the present case and issued process.

3. It is submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners herein reside outside the jurisdiction of the trial Court and the present case being a complaint case; the learned Magistrate only examined the complainant under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

4. It is further submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. has not been complied with.

5. The order issuing process is as follows:

    “C.R. 107 of 2019

    Order dated 12.05.2022

    .............Complainant Susmita Balida Mondal is present by filing hazira. One witness namely Rajugopal Barman is present. He is examined in-chief under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and discharged.

    Accordingly cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under sections 447/341/323/354/506/34 of the IPC against the accused persons.

    Issues summons against the accused persons u/s. 447/341/323 /354/506/34 of IPC.

    Complainant is directed to file requisites of notice upon the accused persons at once.

    To 08.08.2022 for SR and appearance.

    Sd/-

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

    Tamluk, Purba Medinipur..........”

6.........

    (i) In Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings in Criminal Appeal No. 875, 876, 877 of 2019:

    The Supreme Court on 9th May, 2019 observed and held in respect of Section 202 Cr.P.C. as follows (The relevant paragraph are reproduced herein):

    “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 of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is only concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in support of the averments in the complaint to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

    28. In National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another, (2013) 2 SCC 488, the Supreme Court explained the scope of enquiry and held as under:

    “9. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.P.C. and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court. The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not. Investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is different from the investigation contemplated in S

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top