The power under Section 482 is available to challenge an order issuing process or summons, and the failure to follow mandatory provisions under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to issue process/summons.

Headnote:
Revision - Criminal Proceedings - The court held that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to challenge an order issuing process or summons, and the failure to follow mandatory provisions under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to issue process/summons.
Fact of the Case:

The High Court dismissed the petitions for quashing of the criminal proceedings filed by the appellants based on a misinterpretation of a previous judgment.
Finding of the Court:

The court disagreed with the view of the High Court and held that the power under Section 482 is available to challenge an order issuing process or summons, and the failure to follow mandatory provisions under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to issue process/summons.
Issues: Interpretation of the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the mandatory provisions under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 482 is available to challenge an order issuing process or summons, and the failure to follow mandatory provisions under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to issue process/summons.
Final Decision: The court interfered with the orders of the High Court, allowed the appeals, and set aside and quashed the proceedings qua the appellants as a whole including the summoning order.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the petitions for quashing of the criminal proceedings filed by the appellants on the ground that this Court in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh [(2013) 15 SCC 624] has laid down the law that an order summoning the accused is revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and hence the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. We disagree with the view of the High Court. On a plain reading of the judgment of this Court in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh (supra) no such proposition of law has been laid down. In fact, in paragraph 21.3 this Court has held to the contrary i.e. the power under Section 482 would always be available to challenge an order issuing process or summons.

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.

4. We have also taken note of the complaint petition and the averments made therein and the necessary ingredients to attract the offence(s) alleged which is under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

5. On such consideration, we interfere with the orders of the High Court; allow the appeals and set aside and quash the proceedings qua the appellants as a whole including the summoning order dated 17th January, 2015.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document