Criminal proceedings are vitiated if a Magistrate fails to conduct a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC for accused residing outside jurisdiction, or if a necessary party (the Company) is not arraigned as accused under Section 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968.

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.PC praying to quash the entire proceedigns along with the complaint against the petitioners in C.C.No.5633/2014 pending on the file of the I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, in C.C.No.5633/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 17(1)(a) read with Section 3(k)(i) & 29(1)(a) of Insecticide Act, 1968 .

This petition coming on for Final Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

1. Petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings pending on the file of the I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, in C.C.No.5633/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 17(1)(a) read with Section 3(k)(i) & 29(1)(a) of Insecticide Act, 1968 .

2. Respondent-complainant had filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.PC against the petitioners herein alleging that they have committed the offences referred to above under the Insecticide Act, 1968 . On receipt of such a complaint, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same and issued summons to the petitioners. The same has been questioned by the petitioners before this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 is the Manager of the Company and he is the resident of Bhavnagar in Gujarat, while petitioner no.2 is the Branch Manager who is the resident of Hubballi and petitioner no.3 is the resident of Kalaburagi. He submits that since accused nos.1 & 2 are admittedly residing beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, without compliance of Section 202 Cr.PC, the learned Magistrate ought not have to taken cognizance of the alleged offences. He also submits that the Company is required to be made a party as provided under Section 33 of the Act. In the absence of the same, the proceedings against the employees is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.100003/2020 disposed of on 28.07.2020.

4. Learned HCGP who opposes the petition submits that the contention urged by the petitioners are all curable defects, and therefore, the proceedings need not be quashed on the said ground. He also submits that all these grounds can be taken up by him before the Trial Court and it is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Section 482 Cr.PC.

5. On perusal of the order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate, it is seen that the learned Magistrate after receiving the complaint has not complied with the requirement of Section 202 Cr.PC. The Apex Court in the case of AROON PURIE & ANOTHER VS JAYAKUMAR HIREMATH - 2016 ALL SCR (Cri) 1754, has held in paragraph 3 as under:

"3. The above apart, from the materials on record it appears that the accused appellants in the present appeals have and maintain residence beyond the local jurisdiction of the learned trial Court. Under the provisions of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. it was, therefore, mandatory for the learned Magistrate to hold an inquiry either by himself or direct an investigation by the Police prior to the issuance of process. Admittedly, the same had not been done. If the aforesaid mandatory provisions of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. had not been followed, the learned trial Court would not have the jurisdiction to issue process/summons as has been done."

6. Non-compliance of the requirement of Section 202 Cr.PC vitiates the order of taking cognizance, and therefore, all further proceedings pursuant to the same gets vitiated. On perusal of the material available on record, it is ve