Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C is mandatory when the accused resides beyond the court's jurisdiction to prevent false complaints and protect innocent persons from harassment.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Prayer in this petition is to quash complaint No.11344 dated 12.12.2009 under Section 500, 34 IPC (Annexure P-6), summoning order dated 09.03.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh (Annexure P-7) and the order dated 10.11.2017 passed by learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (Annexure P-8) dismissing the revision.

2. It is contended that complaint (Annexure P.6), titled “Jasbir Singh Arora Vs. Suraj Bhan Sharma and others” was filed by the complainant – respondent- Jasbir Singh Arora to prosecute the petitioners under Section 500/34 IPC in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh. Despite the fact that all the accused- petitioners are residents of Kapurthala, i.e. outside the jurisdiction of Chandigarh, where the complaint was filed, learned Magistrate did not make compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C and passed the impugned summoning order dated 09.03.2011, which has been upheld by the revisional Court. Learned counsel has referred to Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, 2017(1) AIR Bom. R (Cri) 547, to contend that impugned order is illegal in the absence of compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent- complainant is unable to controvert the aforesaid contention, though he has made a prayer to remand the matter to the trial Magistrate for re-consideration.

4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the record.

5. It is not in dispute that all the accused- petitioners are residents of Kapurthala. Complaint in question has been filed in Chandigarh Court. Section 202 Cr.P.C reads as under:-

“(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction, postpone the issue 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 as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding; Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made—

(a)where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or

(b)where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.

(2)In an inquiry under Sub-Section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath;

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

(3)If an investigation under Sub-Section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.”

6. It is evident from the afore-said provision that any Magistrate, authorised to take cognizance of an offence, when finds that accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction, shall postpone the issuance of process against the accused and shall either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as the case may be for the purpose of deciding as to whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding or not.

7. The object of amendment of Section 202 Cr.P.C in 2005 has been explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abhijit Pawar’ s case (supra), wherein it was held as under:-

“22) Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is manda