Back
Non-Compliance of Section 202 CrPC Inquiry Cannot Scuttle Cheque Bounce Trial at Final Argument Stage: J&K&L High Court
The has delivered a significant ruling concerning the procedural requirements in cases under . Justice Shahzad Azeem held that while a Magistrate is mandated to conduct an inquiry under when an accused resides outside their territorial jurisdiction, this requirement cannot be used as a tool to derail once the case has reached the stage of .
The Background of the Dispute The matter arose from a long-pending filed by the respondent, Nisar Ahmad Malik, against the petitioner, Aijaz Ahmad Bhat, under Section 138 of the NI Act regarding the worth Rs. 2,10,000. Following the by the , in , the petitioner participated in the trial for over .
By , the court had already concluded the evidence of both parties and posted the matter for . The petitioner subsequently challenged the original order of , arguing that the Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory inquiry provisions of Section 202 CrPC, which are intended to "filter" frivolous complaints against persons residing far from the court’s jurisdiction.
Legal Analysis: Procedural Irregularity vs. The High Court noted that while Section 202 CrPC serves as a vital safeguard against harassment, the petitioner had failed to raise his objection at the earliest possible opportunity. Instead, he participated fully in the trial, cross-examined witnesses, and led his own evidence.
Justice Shahzad Azeem observed that the petitioner was unable to demonstrate any specific "" resulting from the lack of an initial inquiry. Citing , the Court clarified that no order should be reversed due to unless a "" has actually occurred. The court emphasized that by the time a case reaches the final argument stage, the purpose behind the is essentially fulfilled by the trial itself.
Key Observations The judgment underscores that procedural safeguards should not be repurposed to obstruct justice:
-
On the Timing of Objections:
"By his active participation in the trial, the very object of Section 202 Cr. P. C. stands achieved. The objection regarding alleged non-compliance is, therefore, deemed to have been waived. Such challenge, at this stage, appears to be an afterthought."
-
On the Necessity of Proving :
"After a full-fledged trial, where the Petitioner had every opportunity to defend himself on merits, it is extremely difficult to establish ."
-
On the Curability of Omissions:
"The procedural irregularity, if any, is and does not warrant interference at this stage under ."
Final Decision and Implications The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to set the clock back to the pre- stage. While affirming that the inquiry mandate under Section 202 CrPC remains legally binding in cases where it is invoked at the appropriate time, the Court cautioned against reading this judgment as a dilution of that mandate.
For legal practitioners, this decision clarifies that procedural objections regarding the initiation of complaints must be raised promptly. Attempting to weaponize these procedural nuances after years of participation will not be viewed favorably by the courts, particularly when such challenges lack foundational claims of to the accused's right to a .
