9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad in Summery Criminal Case No. 8509 of 2016. 2. The factual matrix of the matter is as under : (a) Respondent No.1 filed a complaint viz Summary Criminal Case No. 8509 of 2016, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. In the complaint, it was alleged that in the year 2014, the accused requested the complainant to start a business of Tours and Travels and Money Exchange in partnership at Aurangabad and demanded Rupees Ten Lakhs with understanding that partnership deed will be executed in between him and the complainant. Accordingly, complainant paid Rupees Ten lakhs to the accused. (b) On the pretext of taking franchisee of Heena Tours, accused again demanded an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner challenged the proceeding on the sole ground that before issuing process, the learned Magistrate failed to follow mandatory provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that accused was resident of Nashik and the complaint is filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad. Since the accused was residing beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court, it was mandatory for the Court to conduct enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that on account of failure to take recourse to Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was mandatory, the order issuing process passed by the Trial Court is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and setaside. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Dr. (Mrs.) Rajul Ketan Ra j Vs. Reliance Capital Limited And Another ( 2016(1) BCR 807 ) as well as the other decisions wherein it was observed that, it is not required to hold enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Pawar Vs. Hemant Nimbalkar and Anr (supra) has observed that enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be conducted in the event the accused are residing beyond the jurisdiction of the trial Court in accordance with the amended provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is pertinent to note that the said observations were made in relation to the offence under the Indian Penal Code. Similar view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 All MR (Cri. ) 1924 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has considered the issue relating to compliance of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, qua the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. This Court has drawn distinction between the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the prosecution under the Indian Penal Code. Taking into consideration the object of the Act and the requisite provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it was observed that in accordance with scheme of the said Act, the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not mandatory. In the decision relied upon by the Advocate for the petitioner, in the case of Abhiji Pawar Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
