RAJNISH KUMAR vs VED PRAKASH - 2024-02-01

O R D E R

Heard Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Reena N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

The petitioners before this Court are primarily on the summoning order dated 24.12.2011 under Sections 177, 182, 203, 211, 500, 504 and 120-B IPC which was passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon exercising his power under Section 200/202 of the Cr.P.C. The order was also challenged before the High Court which did not find any favour. The main ground alleged by the petitioners before this Court is that since the respondents to whom the summons were sent were outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. It was mandatory for him to have done an inquiry as contemplated under Sections 200/202 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners rely upon a judgment of this Court reported in (2014) 14 SCC 638 [Vijay Dhanuka And Ors. vs. Najima Mamtaj And Ors.].

Paragraph 14 of the judgment reads as under :

14. “In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word “inquiry” has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Code, the same reads as follows:

“2. xxx xxx xxx (g) ”inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or Court; xxx xxx xxx”

It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or Court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code.”

We have examined the summoning order dated 24.12.2011 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. The order of the learned Magistrate is a detailed and well considered order where the complaint was made for offences relating to Sections 177, 182, 203, 211, 500, 504 and 120-B IPC have been examined. After going through the complaint as well as examining the complainant as PW-1, the Court came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the complainant under Section 182 of IPC are not made out but prima facie the remaining offences i.e. offences under Sections 177, 203, 211, 500, 504 and 120-B IPC were made out.

Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

All pending applications are disposed of.

(NEETA SAPRA) (R.S. NARAYANAN)

COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR