9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the IPC. It is relevant here to state that in the complaint, the residence of the accused has been shown at a place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. Petitioners challenged the order issuing process in four separate applications filed under Section 482 of the Code before the High Court, inter alia, contending that the accused persons being residents of an area outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who had issued summons, an inquiry within the meaning of Section 202 of the Code was necessary. It was also contended that only after inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate was required to come to the conclusion as to whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused persons. Said submission did not find favour with the High Court and by common order dated 19th of February, 2013, it rejected all the applications. It is against this common order that the petitioners have filed these special leave petitions. Leave granted. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the accused persons admittedly were residing at a place beyond the area in which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case to transferee Magistrate for inquiry and disposal is perfectly in tune with the provisions of the Code. The transferee Magistrate, thereafter, examined the complainant and her witnesses and only thereafter issued the process. Section 200 of the Code, inter alia, provides for examination of the complainant on oath and the witnesses present, if any. Same reads as follows: 1 "200. Examination of complainant. - A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate: Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses- (a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a court has made the complaint; or (b) If the Magistrate makes over the case for inquiry, or trial to another Magistrate under section 192: Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made- (a)where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions; or (b)where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, have been examined on oath under Section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section(1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witness on oath: 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. (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." (underlining ours) Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postpone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erritorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh,(2013) 2 SCC 435, this point need not detain us any further as in the said case, this Court has clearly held that the provision aforesaid is mandatory. It is apt to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment: "40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 CrPC, though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 CrPC were amended vide the Amendment Act, 2005, making it mandatory to postpone the issue of process where the accused resides in an area beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. The same was found necessary in order to protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons and making it obligatory upon the Magistrate to enquire into the case himself, or to direct investigation to be made by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of finding out whether or not, there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused before issuing summons in such case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
