Remanded

Ashok Kumar K. Jogani v. Manjit Singh Bhatia

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2011CRM-M/19348/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in a writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. rejected the petitioner's complaint regarding a cheque bounce case. It held that the issue of non-compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C. needed reappraisal as the petitioner was a non-resident. The matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the trial Court for reappraisal and fresh decision.

Ashok Kumar K. Jogani Vs Manjit… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-19348 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 23.09.2011

¶3

Ashok Kumar K. Jagani

....Petitioner

Versus

Manjit Singh Bhatia

...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶9

Present: Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.B. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Shailender Kashyap, Advocate for the respondent

¶11

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶12

This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of criminal complaint of 2007 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the process had been issued without compliance of provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondent has not advanced any meaningful argument regarding compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C. Having regard to the aforesaid and the observations made in the judgment of this Court in the case S.K. Bhowmik vs. S.K. Arora

¶15

and another, 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 650 and noticing the specific provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C. which is reproduced below:-

¶16

Crl. Misc. No. M-19348 of 2009 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

“202. Postponement of issue of process.- (1) any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 192, may, if he thinks fit (and shall in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction) postpone the issue of process against the accused, 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:

¶19

Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made-

¶20

(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or

¶21

(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witness present (if any) have been examined on oath under Section 200.

¶22

(2) In an inquiry under sub-section(1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath:

¶23

Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.

¶24

(3) If an investigation under sub-section(1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.”

¶25

I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be remitted back to learned trial Court for reappraising the issue, keeping in

¶26

¶27

Crl. Misc. No. M-19348 of 2009 (O&M)

¶28

view the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and noticing the fact that the petitioner is not a resident of area within the jurisdiction of learned trial Court.

¶29

Petition is accepted.

¶30

Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted

¶31

back to the trial Court for decision afresh.

¶32

With the observations made above, present petition is

¶33

disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(MAHESH GROVER) 23.09.2011 JUDGE

¶35

reena

Ashok Kumar K. Jogani v. Manjit Singh Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar K. Jogani v. Manjit Singh Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kanwar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Sarfraj Vs State of Haryana

Harpal Singh Vs State of Pb.Etc.

Lakhwinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Navneet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.