Application to quash a Section 406 IPC complaint and summoning order on the ground that no Section 202(1) CrPC inquiry was conducted since accused lived outside jurisdiction. The court held that examination of complainant and witnesses constituted sufficient inquiry and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:163427
Court No. - 75
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19341 of 2024
Applicant :- Arvind Singh Bhadauriya @ Raju Bhadauriya And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Mishra,Shailendra Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
"It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code."
(482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 21608 of 2014), decided on 24.06.2014, the same issue was raised before the co-ordinate Bench of this court. In that case too, the accused persons were residents of place outside the jurisdiction of the court of magistrate and they were summoned after examining the complainant under section
200 CrPC and two witnesses were examined during inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. and Court held as under :
''The term inquiry as contemplated by sub section (1) of Section 202 is a pre-trial inquiry, as would be clear from Section 2 (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which defines inquiry as every inquiry, other than trial, conducted under the Code by a Magistrate or Court. In Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab: (2014) 3 SCC 92, in para 117.2 of the report, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court observed that inquiries under Sections 200, 201, 202 CrPC, and under Section 398 CrPC are species of the inquiry contemplated by Section 319 CrPC. It was observed that materials coming before the court in course of such inquiries can be used for corroboration of the evidence recorded in the court after the trial commences, for the exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC, and also to add an accused whose name has been shown in Column 2 of the charge-sheet. In Vasanti Dubey v. State of M.P.: (2012) 2 SCC 731, the apex court, in paragraph 29 of the report, observed that while in a case based on police report, the court while taking cognizance will straightaway examine whether a prima facie case is made out or not and will not enter into the correctness of the allegation levelled in the FIR, whereas a complaint case requires an enquiry by the Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC if he takes cognizance of the complaint. In case he refuses to take cognizance he may either dismiss the complaint or direct the investigating agency to enter into further investigation. In case he does not exercise either of these two options, he will have to proceed with the enquiry himself as envisaged and enumerated under Section 200 CrPC. From above, it is clear that recording of statement under Section 200 CrPC or under Section 202 CrPC, is nothing but a part of the pre-trial inquiry. Accordingly, where the magistrate records the statement of the complainant under section 200 CrPC and, if required, of the witnesses under section 202 CrPC and proceeds to consider them, along with other material, if produced, for ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused, and records a satisfaction to that effect, there is sufficient compliance of the amended provisions of sub section (1) of Section 202 of the Code. Process issued to an accused residing out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, after following the aforesaid procedure is not vitiated in any manner.
As in the instant case, the process has been issued after recording the statements of the complainant as well as the witnesses as also after recording satisfaction with regards to existence of a prima facie case against the accused, upon consideration of the statements so recorded as also the material brought on record, it cannot be said that there was no compliance of the amended provisions of sub section (1) of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."
great caution in its exercise. The inherent power can not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.
Order Date :- 15.10.2024 S Rawat
Digitally signed by :- SHOBHIT RAWAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the summoning order was vitiated for want of mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) CrPC when the accused resided outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction?
Whether the complaint proceedings under Section 406 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Odi Jerang vs. Nabajyoti Baruah and OthersRelied on¶6
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2135/2022
Ajay Garg and Another vs. State of U.P. and AnotherDistinguished¶8
2023:AHC:243221
Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima MamtajRelied on¶6
(2014) 14 SCC 638 · Who else cites this
Nishant Tiwari @ Sonu And 2 Ors vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherRelied on¶7
(482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 21608 of 2014)
Hardeep Singh v. State of PunjabReferred
(2014) 3 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
Vasanti Dubey v. State of M.P.Referred
(2012) 2 SCC 731 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind Singh Bhadauriya @ Raju Bhadauriya
Another
Dipanshu Chaudhary
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
