Implied Compliance with Section 202 Inquiry Upheld by Court

The Court held that while the Magistrate did not expressly confirm conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C, the examination of the complaint and documents implied compliance. Noting the petitioner's address within the jurisdiction was mentioned, the Court found the process valid despite the lack of explicit mention of the inquiry. The revisional applications were dismissed, upholding the Magistrate's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) is mandatory before issuing process in a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments (N.I) Act when the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Kolkata.

Summary:

Issue 1: Mandatory Inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C

The common question addressed in these criminal revisions is whether an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is mandatory before issuing process in complaints under Section 138/141 of the N.I Act when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.

Section 202 Cr.P.C mandates that a Magistrate must conduct an inquiry or direct an investigation when the accused resides outside the area of the Magistrate's jurisdiction. This is to prevent false complaints and unnecessary harassment of individuals residing far from the court's jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in cases like Vijay Dhanuka, Abhijit Pawar, and Birla Corporation, has emphasized that the inquiry under Section 202 cannot be dispensed with and is mandatory for determining sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The evidence of the complainant can be given by affidavit under Section 145 of the N.I Act, which the Magistrate may consider during the inquiry.

In the present cases, the petitioner argued that the learned Magistrate issued process without conducting the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, as the petitioner resides in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The Supreme Court in Sunil Todi & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reiterated that Section 202 was amended to prevent false complaints against individuals residing far away as a means of harassment.

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in S.S Binu vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. also held that an inquiry under Section 202 is necessary to prevent false complaints and harassment.

Conclusion:

The Court concluded that although the learned Magistrate did not explicitly state that an inquiry under Section 202 was conducted, the examination of the complaint, affidavit, and documents by the Magistrate implied substantial compliance with the requirement. The Court also noted that the address of the petitioner within the jurisdiction was mentioned in the complaint, which might have influenced the Magistrate's initial decision. Therefore, the absence of explicit mention of the inquiry under Section 202 does not invalidate the process issued by the Magistrate. The revisional applications were set aside, affirming the Magistrate's order.

---