Inherent criminal jurisdiction remains available to challenge summons, and mandatory pre-process inquiry protects accused outside local jurisdiction.
The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC remains available to challenge an order issuing process or summons, and the availability of revision under Section 397 does not create an absolute bar. Where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate's local jurisdiction, Section 202(1) requires an inquiry or police investigation before process is issued; failure to do so vitiates the summons. On the facts, the Magistrate had not complied with that mandatory safeguard, so the issuance of process was invalid and the criminal proceedings, including the summoning order, were quashed.
Issues: (i) whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable to challenge an order issuing process or summons merely because revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is said to be available; (ii) whether issuance of process was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the accused resided beyond the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and whether the proceedings deserved to be quashed.
Issue (i): whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable to challenge an order issuing process or summons merely because revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is said to be available.
Analysis: The earlier decision relied upon by the High Court was read as not laying down any absolute bar against recourse to the inherent jurisdiction. The Court held that the inherent power remains available to challenge an order issuing process or summons and that the contrary view taken by the High Court was incorrect.
Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable.
Issue (ii): whether issuance of process was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where the accused resided beyond the local jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and whether the proceedings deserved to be quashed.
Analysis: As the accused resided beyond the local jurisdiction of the trial court, an inquiry by the Magistrate or an investigation by the police before issuing process was mandatory under Section 202(1). Since that step had not been taken, the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to issue summons. The Court also found the allegations insufficient to displace the relief granted against the appellants.
Conclusion: The issuance of process was invalid and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The High Court orders were interfered with and the criminal proceedings against the appellants were set aside in entirety, including the summoning order.
Ratio Decidendi: The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 remains available to challenge an order issuing process or summons, and where the accused resides outside the Magistrate's local jurisdiction, non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vitiates the issuance of process.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
