The Trial Court must conduct an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. when the accused resides outside its jurisdiction, and failure to do so is a curable defect.

ORDER

This petition has been filed challenging the order in Crl.R.C.No.19 of 2020 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2.By an order dated 02.11.2022 thereby allowed the revision filed by the respondent challenging the order of taking cognizance in C.C.No.6819 of 2019, for the offences under Sections 499, 500 & 501 of IPC. The petitioner lodged a private complaint for the offences punishable under , 500 & 501 of . After taking sworn statement of the petitioner, the Court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under , 500 & 501 of and issued summons to the respondents. It was challenged by the respondent by way of revision in Crl.R.C.No.19 of 2020 on the ground that there was no enquiry under Section 202 (2) of Cr.PC by the Trial Court and before issuance of summons to the petitioner. Since the respondent is having address at Noida, Uttar Pradesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the accused is having address outside the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, the Trial Court necessarily to conduct an enquiry by the Trial Court or by the police. It is mandatory and not merely directory in nature. It is curable defect and the Revisional Court ought not to have dismissed the entire complaint when the procedural lapse on the part of the Trial Court. The proper course is only to direct the Court to take up the matter afresh and pass orders by following the procedure contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.PC.

3.The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the order of taking cognizance was set aside by the Revisional Court not only on the ground of procedure contemplated under Section 202 was not followed and also on other grounds that the respondent was described as an editor corporate and regulatory office of “ET Prime”. Whereas the complainant stated in his sworn statement that the respondent is an editor in ET Now and that he had written articles defamating the Company and its Chairman. Therefore, this contradictory statement would vitiate the entire trial and the Trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance on the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein. Further, the respondent as the Editor of Economic Times cannot be held responsible for the articles that were published in the Business Standard. In particular, neither the complainant nor the complaint has leveled acquisitions as against the respondent in his capacity as an Editor and the Journalist in the Newspaper Business Standard. There is no specific acquisitions in the complaint or in the sworn statement in the complaint as against the respondent with regards the publishing any defamatory articles in 'Economic Times', 'ET Now' or in the 'Times of India' in the capacity of Editor.

4.Admittedly the respondent is having address at outside the jurisdiction of the Trial Court namely the XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. It is relevant to extract the provision of Section 202 of Cr.PC.

“202. Postponement of issue of process.—(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, 1 [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 Session; 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 fi