Section 202 inquiry delay and witness examination rules do not vitiate summons absent prejudice or lack of prima facie satisfaction.

In a sessions-triable complaint case, delay in completing the Section 202 inquiry and issuing summons does not by itself infringe Article 21 unless legal prejudice is shown; the delay was not treated as vitiating the proceedings. The proviso to Section 202(2) requires the Magistrate to call upon the complainant to produce all witnesses and examine those produced, but it does not compel examination of every person named in the complaint; non-examination of all named witnesses did not invalidate the inquiry or summoning order. At the cognizance stage, prima facie satisfaction is sufficient, and the summons order was not found mechanical or lacking application of mind.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prolonged delay in completing inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and issuing summons in a complaint case triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (ii) Whether the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires the complainant to examine all witnesses named in the complaint, failing which the inquiry and summoning order are vitiated. (iii) Whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was mechanical for want of sufficient application of mind.

Issue (i): Whether prolonged delay in completing inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and issuing summons in a complaint case triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to speedy trial is part of Article 21, but in a complaint case the accused does not acquire the same immediate procedural exposure as in a police case until summons is issued under Section 204. Before summons, the proposed accused has no effective role in the proceeding and is not shown to have suffered legal prejudice from the delay in inquiry under Section 202. Though such delay is deprecated and should be avoided, the delay by itself does not infringe the constitutional guarantee where no prejudice to the petitioners is established.

Conclusion: The delay did not violate Article 21 and this issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the proviso to Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires the complainant to examine all witnesses named in the complaint, failing which the inquiry and summoning order are vitiated.

Analysis: The proviso obliges the Magistrate, in a sessions-triable complaint, to call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and to examine those produced. The expression "all his witnesses" was construed as referring to witnesses whom the complainant chooses to produce, not as a compulsion to examine every person named in the complaint in all circumstances. The provision is mandatory as to the Court's duty to afford that opportunity, but it does not compel the complainant to examine unwilling, unavailable, or already examined witnesses. Non-examination of every named witness therefore does not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings.

Conclusion: Non-examination of all named witnesses did not violate the proviso to Section 202(2), and this issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the order taking cognizance and issuing summons was mechanical for want of sufficient application of mind.

Analysis: At the stage of cognizance and issuance of process, the Magistrate is required to see whether a prima facie case is made out, not to record a detailed assessment of evidence. The impugned order showed consideration of the complaint, the statement of the complainant, the evidence recorded in inquiry, and the materials on record. The standard for summoning under Sections 190 and 204 is distinct from the more stringent exercise under Section 319, and the order did not suffer from illegality or mechanical exercise of power.

Conclusion: The summoning order was not mechanical and this issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in all material respects, and the challenged cognizance and summoning order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint case triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, delay in inquiry under Section 202 and non-examination of every witness named in the complaint do not vitiate the proceeding unless legal prejudice or violation of the mandatory judicial duty to call upon the complainant to produce witnesses is shown; at the stage of cognizance, prima facie satisfaction is sufficient.

---