2014 (3) TMI 1103 - SC - Indian Laws

Commission of offence under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC - harassment complaint against sub-broker of Karvy Stock Broking Limited - residence of the accused has been shown at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate - Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur, Murshidabad on 1st of October, 2011, who after taking cognizance of the same, transferred the complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad for inquiry and disposal - whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not? Held that - The words and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction was inserted by Section 19 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23rd of June, 2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. 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. In the present case, as we have stated earlier, the Magistrate has examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and the two witnesses and only thereafter he had directed for issuance of process. In view of what we have observed above, we do not find any error in the order impugned.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
2. Requirement of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Validity of the process issuance without the mandated inquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Magistrate:
The petitioners were summoned in a complaint case for offences under Sections 323, 380, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complaint was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad, and later transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jangipur, Murshidabad. The accused persons were residents of areas beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate who issued the summons. The petitioners contended that an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was necessary before proceeding against them due to their residence being outside the jurisdiction.

2. Requirement of Inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
Section 202 of the CrPC mandates that in cases where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, an inquiry or investigation must be conducted before issuing process. The provision was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, to prevent harassment of innocent persons by false complaints. The amendment made it obligatory for the Magistrate to inquire into the case or direct an investigation to determine whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

3. Validity of the Process Issuance without the Mandated Inquiry:
The petitioners argued that the Magistrate did not conduct the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC before issuing the summons. The respondent, however, contended that the Magistrate had conducted the necessary inquiry. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of the CrPC, particularly Sections 190, 192, 200, and 202. It was noted that the Magistrate had examined the complainant and two witnesses under Section 200 of the CrPC before issuing the process. The Court emphasized that the inquiry under Section 202 is mandatory when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, as clarified in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The Court concluded that the Magistrate's examination of the complainant and witnesses constituted the inquiry required under Section 202. The inquiry conducted by the Magistrate was deemed sufficient to meet the statutory requirements, and the issuance of the summons was found to be in compliance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Magistrate had conducted the necessary inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC before issuing the summons. The process issuance was upheld as valid, and no error was found in the impugned order. The appeals lacked merit and were accordingly dismissed.