2016 (9) TMI 1596 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of order issuing process or summons - residence beyond the local jurisdiction - Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - HELD THAT - The Accused Appellants in the present appeals have and maintain residence beyond the local jurisdiction of the learned trial Court. Under the provisions of Section 202(1) Code of Criminal Procedure it was, therefore, mandatory for the learned Magistrate to hold an inquiry either by himself or direct an investigation by the Police prior to the issuance of process. Admittedly, the same had not been done. If the aforesaid mandatory provisions of Section 202(1) Code of Criminal Procedure had not been followed, the learned trial Court would not have the jurisdiction to issue process/summons as has been done. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the law regarding revisability of an order summoning the Accused under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Jurisdiction of the trial Court to issue process/summons under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Examination of the complaint petition and the ingredients of the alleged offense(s) under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court analyzed the interpretation of the law regarding the revisability of an order summoning the Accused under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court disagreed with the High Court's view that an order summoning the Accused is revisable under Section 397, stating that the power under Section 482 would always be available to challenge such an order. The Court highlighted that the judgment in Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh did not lay down any such proposition of law, contrary to the High Court's understanding.

2. The Court delved into the jurisdiction of the trial Court to issue process/summons under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It noted that the Accused Appellants maintained residence beyond the local jurisdiction of the trial Court. The Court emphasized that under Section 202(1), it was mandatory for the Magistrate to hold an inquiry or direct a police investigation before issuing process. Since this mandatory provision was not followed in the present case, the trial Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the process/summons as it had done.

3. Furthermore, the Court examined the complaint petition and the ingredients of the alleged offense(s) under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After considering the materials on record and the nature of the offense alleged, the Court interfered with the High Court's orders. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside and quashing the proceedings concerning the Appellants, including the summoning order dated 17th January, 2015. This decision was based on the Court's assessment of the complaint petition and the legal requirements for establishing the offense under consideration.