Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Lalit Somiya & Ors vs M/S. Aparna Sarees Pvt. Ltd on 4 April, 2024
04.04.2024
Serial no.12
Aloke
Ct. No. 30
CRR 2451 of 2019
Lalit Somiya & Ors.
Vs.
M/s. Aparna Sarees Pvt. Ltd.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Atis Kumar Biswas,
Mr. Amit Singh,
Ms. Jyoti Agarwal.
For the Opposite Party : None.
1. Affidavit-of-service showing due service is filed. Let the same be
kept with the record. In spite of due service there is no
representation on behalf of the opposite party.
2. The present revisional application has been preferred praying
for quashing of the proceeding being CS/406573 of 2014 for the
offences punishable under Sections 406/420/506/120B of the
Indian Penal Code, pending before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the petitioners have been impleaded as accused persons before
the Trial Court in the said complaint case as partners of M/s.
Om Enterprises located at Mumbai. The said partnership firm
and the petitioners are all residents of Mumbai. Neither has the
firm been made a party in this case nor has the learned
Magistrate complied with the mandatory provisions of Section
202 of the Cr.P.C.
2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Bank of Oman vs.
Barakara Abdul Aziz reported in Laws (SC) 2012 12 84.
5. It also appears that the petitioners have not been sued in the
name of the firm but as partners of the firm. (Purushottam
Umedbhai & Co vs M/S. Manilal & Sons, 1961 AIR 325,
decided on 7th October, 1960).
6. On perusal of the record and the certified copies of the order-
sheets of the Trial Court, it appears that the learned Magistrate
vide order dated 01.10.2015 directed the Officer-in-Charge,
Park Street P.S. to cause enquiry and submit a report by
09.12.2015. Subsequently, the said time to file report was
extended from time to time till 14.06.2018. The said report was
directed to be filed in compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C.
7. In spite of several dates being fixed by the Trial Court awaiting
the police report, no police report was filed before the learned
Magistrate.
8. The learned Magistrate in spite of noting that no police
report has been received, directed issuance of summons by
filing of requisites. On 14.06.2018 the Court on the prayer
of the complainant directed issuance of warrant.
9. The learned Magistrate on 01.10.2015 examined the
complainant on oath under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Then on the
opinion that issuance of the process should be postponed for
the present, directed the Officer-in-Charge, Park Street P.S. to
cause a detailed investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.
3
10. Thus, it appears that the said order for investigation has been
made by the learned Magistrate as per Section 202 (1)(b) of the
Cr.P.C.
11. It is, thus, clear that without waiting for the investigation
report to be filed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. the
Court proceeded to issue process.
12. Section 202 Cr.P.C. lays down:-
"202. Postponement of issue of process. -
(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence
of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has
been made over to him under section 192, may, if he
thinks fit, [and shall, in a case where the accused is
residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction] postpone the issue of process against the
accused, and either inquire into the case himself 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
Session; 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 witnesses 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."
13. In Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors.,
(2014) 14 SCC 638, on March 27, 2014, the Supreme Court
held:-
"11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates
postponement of the issue of the process "in a case where
4
the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in
which he exercises his jurisdiction" and thereafter to
either inquire into the case by himself or direct an
investigation to be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs
our determination is as to 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.
12. The words "and shall, in a case where the accused is
residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction" were inserted by Section 19 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of
2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. 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. The note for the
amendment reads as follows:
"False complaints are filed against persons residing at
far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that
innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous
persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of
Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate
that before summoning the accused residing beyond his
jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct
investigation to be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or
not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused."
The use of the expression "shall" prima facie makes the
inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the
Magistrate mandatory. The word "shall" is ordinarily
mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context
or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of
the word "shall" in all circumstances is not decisive.
Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to
the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to
prevent innocent persons from harassment by
unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in
our opinion, the use of the expression "shall" and the
background and the purpose for which the amendment
has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that
inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is
mandatory before summons are issued against the
accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
Magistrate.
5
13. In view of the decision of this Court in Udai Shankar
Awasthi v. State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 435 : (2013) 1 SCC
(Civ) 1121 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 708] , 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: (SCC p. 449, para 40)
"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 [Ed.:
The matter between the two asterisks has been
emphasised in original as well.] mandatory to postpone
the issue of process [Ed.: The matter between the two
asterisks has been emphasised in original as
well.] 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 cases."
(emphasis supplied)
14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the
next question which falls for our determination is whether
the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held
the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code.
The word "inquiry" has been defined under Section 2(g) of
the Code, the same reads as follows:
"2. (g) „inquiry‟ means every inquiry, other than a trial,
conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court;"
It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every
inquiry other than a trial conducted by the
Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific
mode or manner of inquiry is provided under
Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged
under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are
examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code,
examination of the complainant only is necessary
with the option of examining the witnesses present,
if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the
6
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."
14. In 2018(3) AICLR 625(Cal.), S.S. Binu vs. State of West
Bengal (Cal.), the court held:-
"100. To sum up, the reference made by the Learned
Single Judge on the five issues are answered as follows:-
I. According to the settled principles of law, the
amendment of sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. by
virtue of Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act, 2005, is aimed to prevent innocent
persons, who are residing outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the Learned Magistrate concerned, from
harassment by unscrupulous persons from false
complaints. The use of expression "shall", looking to the
intention of the legislature to the context, is mandatory
before summons are issued against the accused living
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
II. Keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved by
way of amendment of sub-section (1) of Section
202 Cr.P.C., the nature of enquiry as indicated in Section
19 of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, the
Magistrate concerned is to ward of false complaints
against such persons who reside at far of places with a
view to save them from unnecessary harassment and the
Learned Magistrate concerned is under obligation to find
out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by
Criminal Court in the light of the settled principles of law
holding an enquiry by way of examining the witnesses
produced by the complainant or direct an investigation
made by a police officer as discussed hereinabove.
III. When an order of issuing summon is issued by a
learned Magistrate against an accused who is
residing at a place beyond the area in which he
exercises his jurisdiction without conducting an
enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the matter is
required to be remitted to the learned Magistrate
concerned for passing fresh orders uninfluenced by
the prima facie conclusion reached by the Appellate
Court.
IV. Keeping in mind the object underlined in Section
465 Cr.P.C. that if on any technical ground any party to
the criminal proceedings is aggrieved he must raise the
objection thereof at the earliest stage. In the event of
7
failure on the part of an aggrieved party to raise objection
at the earliest stage, he cannot be heard on that aspect
after the whole trial is over or even at a later stage after
his participation in the trial.
V. In cases falling under Section 138 read with Section
141 of the N.I.Act, the Magistrate is not mandatorily
required to comply with the provisions of Section 202 (1)
before issuing summons to an accused residing outside
the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate
concerned."
15. This Court also relies upon the case of Birla Corporation Ltd.
vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings (Criminal appeal No.
875, 876, 877 of 2019). The Supreme Court on 9th May, 2019
observed and held in respect of Section 202 Cr.P.C. as follows
(The relevant paragraph are reproduced herein):-
26. Complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and
enquiry contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and
issuance of process:- Under Section 200 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, on presentation of the complaint by an
individual, the Magistrate is required to examine the
complainant and the witnesses present, if any.
Thereafter, on perusal of the allegations made in the
complaint, the statement of the complainant on solemn
affirmation and the witnesses examined, the Magistrate
has to get himself satisfied that there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused and on such
satisfaction, the Magistrate may direct for issuance of
process as contemplated under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The
purpose of the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to
determine whether a prima facie case is made out and
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
27. The scope of enquiry under this section is extremely
restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the
allegations made in the complaint in order to determine
whether process should be issued or not under Section
204 Cr.P.C. or whether the complaint should be
dismissed by resorting to Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the
footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on
the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his
witnesses, if any. At the stage of enquiry under Section
202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is only concerned with the
allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in
support of the averments in the complaint to satisfy
8
himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
28. In National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz
and Another (2013) 2 SCC 488, the Supreme Court
explained the scope of enquiry and held as under:-
"9. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set
out in Section 202 CrPC and there is an obligation on the
Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls
for investigation by a criminal court. The scope of enquiry
under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or
otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in
order to determine whether process has to be issued or
not. Investigation under Section 202 CrPC is different
from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is
only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not
there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. The
scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore,
limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the
allegations made in the complaint:
(i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the
court;
(ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima
facie case for issue of process has been made out; and
(iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view
of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence
that the accused may have."
29. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda
and Others (2015) 12 SCC 420, the scope of enquiry
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the satisfaction of the
Magistrate for issuance of process has been considered
and held as under:-
"2. Chapter XV Cr.P.C. deals with the further procedure
for dealing with "Complaints to Magistrate".
Under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate, taking
cognizance of an offence on a complaint, shall examine
upon oath the complainant and the witnesses, if any,
present and the substance of such examination should
be reduced to writing and the same shall be signed by
the complainant, the witnesses and the Magistrate.
Under Section 202 Cr.P.C, the Magistrate, if required, is
empowered to either inquire into the case himself or direct
an investigation to be made by a competent person "for
the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding". If, after considering the
statements recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the
result of the inquiry or investigation under Section 202
Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding, he should dismiss the
complaint, after briefly recording the reasons for doing so.
9
3. Chapter XVI Cr.P.C deals with "Commencement of
Proceedings before Magistrate". If, in the opinion of the
Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is
sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate has to
issue process under Section 204(1) Cr.P.C for attendance
of the accused."
30. Reiterating the mandatory requirement of application
of mind in the process of taking cognizance, in Bhushan
Kumar and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another (2012) 5 SCC 424, it was held as under:-
"11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon
International Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 492 (SCC p. 499, para
19) the expression "cognizance" was explained by this
Court as "it merely means „become aware of‟ and when
used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes „to
take notice of judicially‟. It indicates the point when a
court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence
with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such
offence said to have been committed by someone." It is
entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings;
rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of
proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance
is taken of cases and not of persons. Under Section
190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to
the averments in the complaint that constitutes
cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be
satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding
and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction.
Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the
conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at
the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for
proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for
issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code."
31. Under the amended sub-section (1) to Section
202 Cr.P.C., it is obligatory upon the Magistrate that
before summoning the accused residing beyond its
jurisdiction, he shall enquire into the case himself or
direct the investigation to be made by a police officer or
by such other person as he thinks fit for finding out
whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
32. By Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005, in Section
202 Cr.P.C. of the Principal Act with effect from
23.06.2006, in sub-section (1), the words "...and shall, in
a case where accused is residing at a place beyond the
area in which he exercises jurisdiction..." were inserted
by Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code
(Amendment) Act, 2005. In the opinion of the legislature,
such amendment was necessary as false complaints are
filed against persons residing at far off places in order to
harass them. The object of the amendment is to ensure
that persons residing at far off places are not harassed
10
by filing false complaints making it obligatory for the
Magistrate to enquire. Notes on Clause 19 reads as
under:-
"False complaints are filed against persons residing at
far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that
the innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous
persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1)
of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate
that before summoning the accused residing beyond his
jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct
investigation to be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or
not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused."
33. Considering the scope of amendment to Section
202 Cr.P.C., in Vijay Dhanuka and Others v. Najima
Mamtaj and Others (2014) 14 SCC 638, it was held as
under:-
"12. ....The use of the expression "shall" prima facie
makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may
be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word "shall" is
ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account
the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory.
The use of the word "shall" in all circumstances is not
decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when
we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it
is aimed to prevent innocent persons from harassment
by unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence,
in our opinion, the use of the expression "shall" and the
background and the purpose for which the amendment
has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that
inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is
mandatory before summons are issued against the
accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
Magistrate." Since the amendment is aimed to prevent
persons residing outside the jurisdiction of the court from
being harassed, it was reiterated that holding of enquiry
is mandatory. The purpose or objective behind the
amendment was also considered by this Court in Abhijit
Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another
(2017) 3 SCC 528 and National Bank of Oman v.
Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another (2013) 2 SCC 488.
34. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of
the case and the law applicable thereto. The application
of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the
satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the
Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a
complaint case and that there must be sufficient
indication as to the application of mind and observing
that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking
11
cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood Ul Rehman, this
Court held as under:-
"22. ....the Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking
order to be passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. when the
complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to
be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is
not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each
and every complaint filed before him and issue process
as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication
in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied
that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence
and when considered along with the statements recorded
and the result of inquiry or report of investigation
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is
answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for
proceeding against the accused under Section
204 Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. The
application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of
mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in
a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections
190/204 Cr.P.C., the High Court under Section
482 Cr.PC. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order
to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be
called to appear before the criminal court as an accused
is serious matter affecting one‟s dignity, self-respect and
image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court
shall not be made a weapon of harassment."
35. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial
Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Supreme
Court has held that summoning of an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the
Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he
has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law
governing the issue. In para (28), it was held as under:-
"28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a
serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as
a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to
bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the
complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The
order of the Magistrate summoning the accused
must reflect that he has applied his mind to the
facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He
has to examine the nature of allegations made in the
complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in
support thereof and would that be sufficient for the
complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the
accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator
at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before
summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to
carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and
may even himself put questions to the complainant and
his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness
12
of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any
offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the
accused." The principle that summoning an accused in a
criminal case is a serious matter and that as a matter of
course, the criminal case against a person cannot be set
into motion was reiterated in GHCL Employees Stock
Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited (2013) 4 SCC 505.
36. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court
as an accused is a serious matter affecting one‟s dignity
and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a
serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed
on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there
has to be application of mind as to whether the
allegations in the complaint constitute essential
ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient
grounds for proceeding against the accused. In Punjab
National Bank and Others v. Surendra Prasad
Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, it was held that the
issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should
be made an instrument of oppression or needless
harassment.
37. At the stage of issuance of process to the accused,
the Magistrate is not required to record detailed orders.
But based on the allegations made in the complaint or the
evidence led in support of the same, the Magistrate is to
be prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds
for proceeding against the accused. In Jagdish Ram v.
State of Rajasthan and Another (2004) 4 SCC 432, it was
held as under:-
"10. ....The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area
exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this
stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is
sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is
sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is
adequate for supporting the conviction, can be
determined only at the trial and not at the stage of
inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the
accused, the Magistrate is not required to record
reasons."
56. As held in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra
Bose alias Chabi Bose and Another AIR 1963 SC 1430
and in a series of judgments of the Supreme Court, the
object of an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is for the
Magistrate to scrutinize the material produced by the
complainant to satisfy himself that the complaint is not
frivolous and that there is evidence/material which forms
sufficient ground for the Magistrate to proceed to issue
process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the
Magistrate to elicit every fact that would establish the
bona fides of the complaint and the complainant.
60........................The Magistrate who is conducting an
investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has full power in
13
collecting the evidence and examining the matter. We are
conscious that once the Magistrate is exercised his
discretion, it is not for the Sessions Court or the High
Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the
Magistrate to examine the case on merits. The Magistrate
may not embark upon detailed enquiry or discussion of
the merits/demerits of the case. But the Magistrate is
required to consider whether a prima case has been
made out or not and apply the mind to the materials
before satisfying himself that there are sufficient grounds
for proceeding against the accused.......................
61. The object of investigation under Section
202 Cr.P.C. is "for the purpose of deciding whether
or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding".
The enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to
ascertain the fact whether the complaint has any
valid foundation calling for issuance of process to
the person complained against or whether it is a
baseless one on which no action need be taken. The
law imposes a serious responsibility on the
Magistrate to decide if there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The issuance of
process should not be mechanical nor should be
made as an instrument of harassment to the
accused. As discussed earlier, issuance of process
to the accused calling upon them to appear in the
criminal case is a serious matter and lack of
material particulars and non-application of mind
as to the materials cannot be brushed aside on the
ground that it is only a procedural
irregularity................."
16. Thus it is clear that Section 202 Cr.P.C. makes it obligatory
upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused
residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall inquire into the case
himself or direct investigation to be made by a Police Officer or
by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether
or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
17. In Sunil Todi and Ors. vs State of Gujarat and Anr.,
Criminal Appeal No. 1446 of 2021, on 03.12.2021, the
Supreme Court held:-
14
"31. The second submission which has been urged on
behalf of the appellants turns upon Section 202 CrPC,
which is extracted:
"202. Postponement of issue of process.--(1) Any
Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of
which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has
been made over to him under section 192, may, if he
thinks fit, 1 [and shall, in a case where the accused is
residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction,] postpone the issue of process against the
accused, and either inquire into the case himself 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 Session; 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 witnesses 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."
32. ..................................................
33. The provisions of Section 202 which mandate the
Magistrate, in a case where the accused is residing at a
place beyond the area of its jurisdiction, to postpone the
issuance of process so as to enquire into the case himself
or direct an investigation by police officer or by another
person were introduced by Act 25 of 2005 with effect
from 23 June 2006. The rationale for the amendment is
based on the recognition by Parliament that false
complaints are filed against persons residing at far off
places as an instrument of harassment. In Vijay
Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj20, this Court dwelt on the
purpose of the amendment to Section 202, observing:
"11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates
postponement of the issue of the process „in a case where
the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in
which he exercises his jurisdiction‟ and thereafter to
either inquire into the case by himself or direct an
investigation to be made by a police officer or by such
15
other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs
our determination is as to 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.
12. The words „and shall, in a case where the accused is
residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction‟ were inserted by Section 19 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of
2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. 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. The note for the
amendment reads as follows:
„False complaints are filed against persons residing at
far-off places simply to harass them. In order to see that
innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous
persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of
Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate
that before summoning the accused residing beyond his
jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct
investigation to be made by a police officer or by such
other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or
not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.‟
The use of the expression "shall" prima facie makes the
inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the
Magistrate mandatory. The word "shall" is ordinarily
mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context
or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of
the word "shall" in all circumstances is not decisive.
Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to
the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to
prevent innocent persons from harassment by
unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in
our opinion, the use of the expression "shall" and the
background and the purpose for which the amendment
has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that
inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is
mandatory before summons are issued against the
accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the
Magistrate."
34. This Court has held that the Magistrate is duty
bound to apply his mind to the allegations in the
complaint together with the statements which are
recorded in the enquiry while determining whether there
is a prima facie sufficient ground for proceeding. In
Mehmood UI Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad
Tunda21, this Court followed the dictum in Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate22, and observed
that setting the criminal law in motion against a person is
a serious matter. Hence, there must be an application of
16
mind by the Magistrate to whether the allegations in the
complaint together with the statements recorded or the
enquiry conducted constitute a violation of law. The Court
observed:
"20. The extensive reference to the case law would
clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint
is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused.
Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain
facts which constitute an offence, there has to be
application of mind as to whether the allegations in the
complaint, when considered along with the statements
recorded or the inquiry conducted thereon, would
constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear
before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or
matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods
Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial
Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] to
set in motion the process of criminal law against a person
is a serious matter."
***
"22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the 17 criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one's dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment."
These decisions were cited with approval in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar23. After referring to the purpose underlying the amendment of Section 202, the Court observed:
"25. ... the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to apply his mind carefully and satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the enquiry conducted thereon, would prima facie constitute the offence for which the complaint is filed. This requirement is emphasised by this Court in a recent judgment Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]..."
35. While noting that the requirement of conducting an enquiry or directing an investigation before issuing process is not an empty formality, the Court relied on the decision in Vijay Dhanuka which had held that the 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 enquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code.
36. In Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings24, the earlier decisions which have been referred to above were cited in the course of the judgment. The Court noted:
"26. The scope of enquiry under this section is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under Section 204 CrPC or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 CrPC on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. At the stage of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC, the Magistrate is only concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in support of the averments in the complaint to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."
Hence, the Court held:
"33. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to the accused in a 18 complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]..."
The above principles have been reiterated in the judgment in Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P25."
The Court considered the same later, in the light of a proceedings under Section 138/141C N.I. Act.
18. In the present case only the complainant has been effectively examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who has stated about the facts/offences alleged in the present case. In spite of directing the police under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to file a report, the court without the report proceeded to issue process and then a warrant.
19. Thus in view of the judgment in Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors. (Supra), it is clear from the said order dated 14.06.2018 that no inquiry as obligatory under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been conducted as no report on an investigation/inquiry by the police has been filed before issuance of process, then a warrant.
20. The Magistrate did not comply with the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C., even though the petitioners reside (in Mumbai) outside the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, in a different State and as such the order is not in accordance with law, and is thus an abuse of the process of law.
21. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the nature of case pending between the parties, the non-compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C. by the 19 Magistrate before issuance of process is prima facie an abuse of process of Court.
22. Accordingly in the interest of justice the order dated 14.06.2018 passed in CS/406573 of 2014 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, is hereby set aside.
23. The matter is remitted to the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Calcutta, for considering the matter afresh as per the relevant provision of law, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the judgment Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings (Supra), S.S. Binu vs. State of West Bengal (Supra) and Vijay Dhanuka and Ors.
vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors. (Supra) referred to in this order/judgment and without being influenced by the order of this Court.
24. CRR 2451 of 2019 is accordingly disposed of.
25. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of.
26. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
27. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)