Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(CAL) 115
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT - APPELLATE SIDE
Tirthankar Ghosh, J
Srikanta Paul – Appellant
Versus
Manik Sarkar and others – Respondent
C.R.R.129 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dhananjay Banerjee, Ms. Oindrila Ghosh
For the Respondents:
The court emphasized the need for caution by the Magistrate in issuing process under Sections 204 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Headnote:This case revolves around an application under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, being the complainant, challenged the learned Magistrate's decision to recall an order of issuance of summons under Section 204, arguing its implications and relevance based on the necessity of satisfaction concerning jurisdiction. The court determined that while the direction for an enquiry under Section 202 is justifiable, the learned Magistrate's retraction of the earlier order was misplaced. The court instructed the Magistrate to act expeditiously on the matter considering the delay involved. The ruling resulted in the disposal of CRR 129 of 2021 and related pending applications.
The petitioner happens to be the complainant. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate was pleased to issue process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , but, subsequently the learned Magistrate recalled the order and directed for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The purpose and object of issuance of summons under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of persons staying outside the jurisdiction of the court has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a series of case. The very purpose is to check as to whether there is any possibility of false implication of the accused persons in a criminal case. Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretion of the court which is intended for a subjective satisfaction to be recorded prior 2 to issuance of process.
In this case, in the petition of complaint and in the cause title an address was provided which was within the jurisdiction of the concerned court. Thereafter, the court observed that the address is vague and the residential address was furnished by the complainant in respect of the accused persons against whom process was issued. The learned Magistrate by a subsequent order directed for enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the residential address was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Such order was passed in the month of October 2020. I do not find that direction for passing order under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be interfered with. However, learned Magistrate should have been cautious prior to issuance of process as recalling of an order of issuance of process is not within the domain of the learned Magistrate.
Having considered that more than two years have passed since the order under challenge is before this Court and without interim order of stay, I direct that learned Magistrate on receipt of the report to immediately take steps for exercising his discretion on the point of issuance of process, if the same has not already been done.
With the aforesaid observations, CRR 129 of 2021 is disposed of.
Pending application, if any, is consequently disposed of.
All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.
