Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9 of 24 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110569 CRM-M-59184-2023 ::

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Udai Shankar Awasthi versus State of U.P. and another (Criminal Appeal No.61 and 62 of 2013 decided on 09.01.2013)', has held as under:-
26. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code, though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code were amended vide 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 cases.. (See also:
"40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C., though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. were amended vide the Amendment Act, 2005, 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."
14. Apparently, the examination of the complainant and other witnesses takes place under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and therefore, any enquiry/investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. must be something more than just the recording of the statements of complainant and the witnesses under Section 200 Cr.P.C. or the exhibiting of documents by those witnesses.

If the recording of statements of the complainant and witnesses and the exhibiting of documents by those witnesses amounted to the holding of an enquiry, then, there was no need for the Legislature to have incorporated 23 of 24 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:110569 CRM-M-59184-2023 ::

under Section 202 Cr.P.C. which is a stage beyond the examination of the complainant and his witnesses. In fact, Section 202 Cr.P.C. would be rendered nugatory.
15. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, while it is true that a number of witnesses had been examined and various documents exhibited, as the accused were residing in the State of U.P. i.e. beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Amritsar, it was mandatory upon the Court to have held an enquiry in the manner that it thought fit. In the instant case, no such enquiry was held thereby violating Section 202 Cr.P.C.