9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to territorial jurisdiction in a criminal case, recall of summons by a Magistrate, and the appropriate remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Territorial Jurisdiction: The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the respondents. However, the respondents challenged the complaint's maintainability due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Magistrate recalled the summons and returned the complaint to the appellant. The High Court upheld this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court. Recall of Summons: The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Magistrate was justified in recalling the summons based on an application by the respondents under Sections 202, 203, and 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court referred to previous judgments, including the Adalat Prasad case, which emphasized that the accused cannot interfere at the interlocutory stage under Section 203. The Court held that the appropriate remedy for the accused in such situations is to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code, rather than seeking a review under Section 203. Appropriate Remedy: The Supreme Court reiterated that the scheme of the Code does not allow for a review of the order of issuance of process and prohibits interference by the accused at the interlocutory stage under Section 203. Citing previous cases, the Court emphasized that the remedy for the accused in case of an erroneous order lies in invoking Section 482 of the Code. The Court set aside the High Court's decision and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, granting the respondents the liberty to challenge the jurisdiction by filing a petition under Section 482 if desired.
|
