Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.678-681 OF 2014

(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.5090-5093 of 2013)

VIJAY DHANUKA ETC.

…APPELLANTS

VERSUS

NAJIMA MAMTAJ ETC.

…RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.

Petitioners have been summoned in a complaint

case for commission of offence under Section 323,

380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”.

Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur,

Murshidabad on 1^st of October, 2011, who after

taking cognizance of the same, transferred the

Page 2

JUDGMENT

complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate,

Jangipur, Murshidabad for inquiry and disposal.

According to the allegation in the complaint

petition, accused no.1 Rajdip Dey is sub-broker of

Karvy Stock Broking Limited; whereas other accused

persons are its officials posted at Kolkata and

Hyderabad. The complainant alleged to be its

investor and claimed to have purchased shares from

Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. through the sub-broker,

accused No. 1. According to the complaint, a

dispute arose over trading of shares between the

complainant and the accused persons and to settle

the on-going dispute, the accused persons offered

a proposal to the complainant who consented to it

and accordingly, on 11^th of September, 2011,

accused persons visited at her residence at

Raghunathganj Darbeshpara to have a discussion

with the complainant and her husband. According to

the allegation, the discussion did not yield any

result and the accused persons started shouting at

them. Some of the accused persons, according to

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

the allegation, took out a pistol from their bag

and put the same over the heads of the complainant

and her husband. It is alleged that they assaulted

the complainant and her husband with fists and

slaps and also abused them and coerced the

complainant to sign some papers and snatched away

the suitcase containing some papers. The aforesaid

complaint was filed on 1^st of October, 2011 in the

Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Jangipur, Murshidabad. The learned Magistrate

took cognizance of the offence and transferred the

case to the Court of another Magistrate for

inquiry and disposal. On receipt of the record,

the transferee Magistrate adjourned the case to

31^st of October, 2011. On the said date, the

complainant and her witnesses were present. The

complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and

the two witnesses namely Enamul Haque and Masud

Ali were also examined. Order dated 31^st of

October, 2011 shows that they were examined under

Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”). The

transferee Magistrate, thereafter, adjourned the

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

case for orders and on the adjourned date, i.e.

15^th of November, 2011, he directed for issuance of

summons against the accused persons for offence

under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section

34 of the IPC. It is relevant here to state that

in the complaint, the residence of the accused has

been shown at a place beyond the territorial

jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Petitioners challenged the order issuing

process in four separate applications filed under

Section 482 of the Code before the High Court,

inter alia, contending that the accused persons

being residents of an area outside the territorial

jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who had

issued summons, an inquiry within the meaning of

Section 202 of the Code was necessary. It was

also contended that only after inquiry under

Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate

was required to come to the