S.202 CrPC Inquiry Mandatory Before Summoning Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court - 2025-04-22

Allahabad High Court Quashes Complaint Against Larsen & Toubro Executives, Emphasizing Mandatory S.202 CrPC Inquiry

Lucknow, – The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed a complaint and summoning order against top executives of Larsen & Toubro (L&T), reiterating the mandatory nature of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when summoning accused persons residing outside the court's jurisdiction. Justice Rajesh SinghChauhan presided over the case, which involved four petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC.

Case Overview

The petitioners, Mr. R. Shankar Raman , Mr. N. Dharmarajan, Mr. S.N. Subramanyan Sarma, and Mr. M.V. Satish, all senior executives at L&T, sought to quash Complaint Case No. 1998 of 2017 filed by Sankalp Mishra in Lucknow. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), concerning cheating, criminal breach of trust, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation. The Magistrate had initially issued a summoning order dated 16.05.2018, which was later upheld in revision by the 1st Additional District Judge.

The L&T executives, based in Chennai, argued that they had no connection to the alleged incident in Lucknow and were implicated in a false complaint. They contended that the Magistrate failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing summons, especially since they resided outside the court's jurisdiction.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Counsel: Learned Senior Advocate Sri Dileep Kumar, representing the petitioners, argued that the complaint was based on "false, concocted and imaginary allegations." He highlighted significant discrepancies and contradictions in the complainant's statements. Crucially, he emphasized that the petitioners, being residents of Chennai and policy-level decision-makers in L&T, were not present in Lucknow during the alleged incident. He asserted that the Magistrate had "mechanically summon[ed] the Petitioners" without applying judicial mind or adhering to the mandatory procedure of Section 202 CrPC. Counsel cited precedents, including Vijay Dhanuka and others Versus Najima Mamtaj and others and Odi Jerang vs Nabajyoti Baruah , to underscore the mandatory nature of Section 202 CrPC in cases where the accused reside outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction. They also invoked State of Haryana and Others Vs Bhajan Lal and Others to argue that the proceedings were manifestly mala fide and instituted with an ulterior motive.

Opposite Party's Counsel: Counsel for the complainant, Opposite Party No. 2, argued that the complaint was bona fide and that the petitioners had committed serious offences. They claimed the complainant was made a "scapegoat" and forced to give cheques to the company under duress. They also raised procedural objections regarding the deponents of the petitions and rejoinders, which the court found irrelevant.

Court's Reasoning and Reliance on Legal Precedents

Justice Chauhan meticulously examined Section 202 CrPC, which mandates postponement of the issue of process and an inquiry or investigation when the accused resides outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The court emphasized the 2005 amendment to Section 202, which introduced the word "shall," making the inquiry mandatory to protect innocent individuals from harassment through false complaints.

The judgment extensively quoted and relied upon several Supreme Court precedents:

Vijay Dhanuka (2014) 14 SCC 638: Reinforced the mandatory nature of Section 202 CrPC when the accused resides outside jurisdiction. The court quoted paragraph 12 of this judgment, highlighting the legislative intent behind the 2005 amendment: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far-off places simply to harass them. In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202…"

Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar (2017) 3 SCC 528: Reiterated the mandatory obligation on the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry or direct investigation before issuing process to accused residing outside jurisdiction, aiming to filter and reject false complaints.

Odi Jerang vs Nabajyoti Baruah (2023): Further affirmed the mandatory nature of Section 202 CrPC in such cases.

State of Haryana and Others Vs Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]: Cited to highlight categories of cases where inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to prevent abuse of process, including cases where allegations do not constitute an offence or proceedings are mala fide.

Haji Iqbal alias Bala through S.P.O.A Vs. State of UP & Others (2023) SCC OnLine SC 948: Emphasized the court's duty to scrutinize FIRs in quashing petitions, especially when allegations of vexatious or vengeance-driven proceedings are made, and to look beyond the FIR averments to ascertain the truth.

Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749: Underlined that summoning an accused is a serious matter, requiring the Magistrate to apply their mind to the facts and law, and not to set criminal law in motion as a matter of course.

The court found that the Magistrate had failed to conduct a basic preliminary inquiry as mandated by Section 202 CrPC before summoning the L&T executives. This procedural lapse, combined with the discrepancies in the complaint and the fact that the petitioners resided outside the jurisdiction, led the court to conclude that the summoning order and subsequent proceedings were unsustainable.

Final Decision and Implications

Ultimately, Justice Chauhan allowed the petitions, quashing Complaint Case No. 1998 of 2017 and the summoning order dated 16.05.2018, along with the revisional order. The decision underscores the critical importance of adhering to Section 202 CrPC, particularly to prevent harassment of individuals residing outside the jurisdiction of the court in potentially frivolous complaints. This judgment serves as a significant reminder to Magistrates to diligently apply judicial mind and follow due process before summoning accused persons, especially those from distant locations.

---

Note: This is a legal news article based on the provided court judgment and should not be considered legal advice. ```