<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (2) TMI 1740 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461091</link>
    <description>Where accused persons reside outside the Magistrate&#039;s territorial jurisdiction, the pre-summoning inquiry or investigation under Section 202 CrPC is mandatory before process is issued. The High Court held that the Magistrate&#039;s failure to conduct the required preliminary inquiry after examination of the complaint under Section 200 vitiated the summoning order. It also held that Section 465 CrPC did not cure the defect, as omission of a mandatory procedural safeguard is not a mere irregularity, particularly before charges are framed. The order issuing process was therefore set aside and the matter was directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law after compliance with Section 202.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:20:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=806076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1740 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461091</link>
      <description>Where accused persons reside outside the Magistrate&#039;s territorial jurisdiction, the pre-summoning inquiry or investigation under Section 202 CrPC is mandatory before process is issued. The High Court held that the Magistrate&#039;s failure to conduct the required preliminary inquiry after examination of the complaint under Section 200 vitiated the summoning order. It also held that Section 465 CrPC did not cure the defect, as omission of a mandatory procedural safeguard is not a mere irregularity, particularly before charges are framed. The order issuing process was therefore set aside and the matter was directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law after compliance with Section 202.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>