Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Mr. R. Shankar Raman Whole Time Director And Chief Financial Officer – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/S 482 No.4806 of 2018, APPLICATION U/S 482 No.4649 of 2018, Application U/S 482 No. -4823 of 2018, APPLICATION U/S 482 No. -4902 of 2018
Decided on : 26-04-2024
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT - Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 202 Cr.P.C., IPC Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420 - The court discussed the mandatory nature of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. post-amendment in 2005, emphasizing that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry before issuing summons against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction. The court found that the learned Magistrate failed to apply this provision, leading to a quashing of the complaint and summoning order due to lack of sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, senior executives of M/s Larsen and Toubro Limited, sought to quash a complaint filed against them under various sections of the IPC, claiming the allegations were false and lacked merit. They argued that they were not present at the location of the alleged incident and that the complaint was based on fabricated claims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Magistrate did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., which necessitates an inquiry when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction. The court determined that the complaint did not establish any prima facie case against the petitioners.
Issues: Whether the learned Magistrate properly applied the provisions of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before summoning the petitioners, and whether the allegations in the complaint constituted a valid case under the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mandatory nature of Section 202 Cr.P.C. requires a preliminary inquiry when the accused is outside the jurisdiction, to prevent harassment from false complaints. The failure to conduct such an inquiry rendered the summoning order void.
Final Decision: The court quashed the complaint and the summoning order against the petitioners, allowing the petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raghuvansh Mishra, Sri Subhash Gulati & Sri Rajendra Kumar Dwivedi assisted by Ms. Sagun Chandra Rastogi, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Aditya Vikram Singh holding brief of Sri Manish Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the private opposite party as well as Ms. Nusrat Jahan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. Since the subject matter is same in all the aforesaid four petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the aforesaid petitions are clubbed together and are being decided by a common order.
3. By means of the aforesaid four petitions, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,the petitioners have prayed the following common reliefs:
It is further prayed that the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the 1st Addl District Judge passed in Criminal Revision No: 422 of 2018 may also be quashed.
It is further prayed that The Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to pass any other order or direction which it may deem fit, proper and just under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that in the aforesaid petitions, the Petitioner, namely, Mr. R. Shankar Raman is the Whole Time Director and Chief Financial Officer of M/s Larsen and Toubro Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘L & T’); Mr. M.N. Dharmarajan is vice president and Head of L & T; Mr. S.N. Subramanyan Sarma is Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of L & T and Mr. M.V. Satish is Whole Time Director and Senior Executive Vice President of L & T. The Petitioners’ office is situated at Chennai and they have never visited Lucknow on the alleged date of incident or otherwise. The role of the Petitioners are to exercise their authority at a policy-making level and the day-to-day basis of conducting every project of the Company.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has further stated that the complaint filed by the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 is based upon the false, concocted and imaginary allegations and the entire version set up in the complaint of the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 is full of inherent falsity, discrepancies, self-contradictory allegations and on highly discrepant versions of the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2 at different stages and in different depositions or narrations made by him i.e. in the statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C., affidavit, the complaint made to SSP dated 07.09.2017 and the pre-summoning evidence recorded in the court on 13.09.2017 do not, prima facie, make out any criminal case whatsoever. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the learned Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind to such glaring discrepancies and contradictions and was pleased to mechanically summon the Petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, 420 IPC.
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has further submitted that the alleged core incident is that three cheques were given to the Company on three different dates, i.e. on 29.08.2017 of Rs.5,00,000/-(Cheque no. 011492), on 05.09.2017 of Rs. 4,00,000/-(Cheque no. 011493), on 29.09.2017 of Rs. 49,00,000/-(Cheque no. 011494) respectively, aggregating to the tune of Rs.58,00,000 and later on one blank cheque was given to the Company by the complainant/opposite Part
The amendment to Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry before issuing summons against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction, to prevent 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....
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 main legal point established is that summoning of an accused in a criminal case requires the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process, and the Magistrate must ....
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
