The Magistrate must conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before issuing summons if the accused resides outside its jurisdiction, as this is mandatory to prevent harassment through false complaints.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sumeet Goel, J.

The present petition has been filed, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C') by the petitioner-Sachin Kashyap for quashing of criminal complaint No.223 dated 18.11.2016 filed under Sections 406, 498-A, 420, 120-B, 376, 323, 324, 506 of IPC; summoning order dated 09.06.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. It would be pertinent to refer herein to the factual matrix of the present lis.

(i) The marriage of the petitioner and the respondent (herein) -complainant was solemnized at Ludhiana on 23.01.2003. Two children were bom out of this wedlock.

(ii) A petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed before the Family Court at Roorkee, Haridwar (Uttarakhand) wherein, vide judgment/decree dated 22.09.2014, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent (herein) - complainant was dissolved.

(iii) The respondent (herein) - complainant filed an application before the said Family Court pleading that the mutual consent divorce decree was obtained on account of fraud. Vide order dated 11.05.2015 passed by the Family Court, Roorkee, this application was dismissed.

(iv) The respondent (herein) - complainant filed another application before the said Family Court, Roorkee seeking setting-aside of the mutual consent divorce decree. However, the same was also dismissed by the said Family Court vide order dated 04.11.2015.

(v) Still aggrieved, the respondent (herein) - complainant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital wherein a prayer was made for setting-aside of the above-said two dismissal orders passed by the Family Court, Roorkee as also the judgment/decree dated 22.09.2014 granting mutual consent divorce. However, the said appeal was withdrawn by the appellant (respondent herein) vide order dated 14.07.2017, relevant whereof reads as under:

"FA No. 125 of 2015

Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J

Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal with liberty reserved to take recourse to law, if advised.

Permission granted.

The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

It is, however, made clear that limitation shall not come in the way of the appellant since she is diligently pursuing the remedy before this Court.

14.07.2017"

(vi) The respondent (herein) - complainant filed a complaint dated 18.08.2015 before the Women Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh pleading for registration of an FIR under Sections 406/498-A etc. of IPC against the petitioner and his family members. The matter was looked into by the Police, upon the directions of the said Women Commission, but the said complaint was recommended for filing.

(vii) Thereafter, the respondent (herein) - complainant filed the impugned criminal complaint No.223, dated 18.11.2016 under Sections 406, 498A, 420, 120B, 376, 323, 324 & 506 of IPC before the JMIC, Ludhiana wherein the petitioner was directed to be summoned as an accused for an offence under Section 420 of IPC vide the impugned summoning order dated 09.06.2017.

(viii) It is in this factual backdrop that the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner-accused for quashing of the impugned criminal complaint; summoning order passed by JMIC, Ludhiana as also all the proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent (herein) - complainant was dissolved vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 passed by the Family Court, Roorkee (Uttarakhand) and the same was challenged twice by way of filing applications before the said Family Court which resulted in dismissal of the said applications. Even an appeal filed by t