2019 (6) TMI 1581 - HC - Indian Laws

Complaint Quashed, Order Set Aside: Compliance Emphasized

The court quashed the complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC, set aside the order passed by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, and ... Jurisdiction - petition and petitioners under different state - non-compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. - allegation is that Magistrate was required to postpone the issue of process and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in the matter, which was not done in the present case - HELD THAT:- Dealing with Section 202 of Cr.P.C Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ABHIJIT PAWAR VS. HEMANT MADHUKAR NIMBALKAR AND ANOTHER [2016 (12) TMI 1774 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to proceed in the matter after compliance of the requirements of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. - petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:1. Quashing of complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC2. Setting aside the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru3. Compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. regarding summoning accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the MagistrateIssue 1: Quashing of complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of IPCThe petitioners sought to quash the complaint lodged against them in C.C.No.6390/2015 for alleged offenses punishable under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC. The petitioners argued that the order of taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate and issuing summons without following the procedure under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. had vitiated the proceedings. They contended that the Magistrate, in cases where the accused resides beyond his jurisdiction, must conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in ABHIJIT PAWAR VS. HEMANT MADHUKAR NIMBALKAR was cited to support this argument.Issue 2: Setting aside the order dated 16.07.2015The petitioners also sought to set aside the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, taking cognizance of the offenses in PCR No.386/2015 and issuing process to the petitioners in C.C.No.6390/2015. They argued that the order was invalid due to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 202 of Cr.P.C., as the petitioners were residents of Delhi while the petitions were filed in Bengaluru. The petitioners emphasized that the Magistrate should have postponed the issue of process and conducted an inquiry before proceeding further.Issue 3: Compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. regarding summoning accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the MagistrateThe key contention made by the petitioners was the failure of the learned Magistrate to comply with the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in summoning the accused who resided beyond the Magistrate's jurisdiction. The petitioners argued that the mandatory nature of the provision required the Magistrate to make necessary inquiries into the case himself or direct an investigation before summoning an accused residing outside his jurisdiction. The petitioners relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling to support their argument and successfully persuaded the court to set aside the process issued to them and remit the matter back to the Magistrate for compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by the petitioners, the legal provisions invoked, and the court's decision based on the cited precedents and legal requirements.