Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"30. Under the amended sub-section (1) to Section 202 Cr.P.C., it is obligatory upon CRL.P. NO.101729 OF 2017 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. Considering the scope of amendment to Section 202 Cr.P.C., in Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj [Vijay Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638: (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 479] , it was held as under: (SCC p.

60. 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. In the present case, the satisfaction of the CRL.P. NO.101729 OF 2017 Magistrate in ordering issuance of process to the respondents is not well founded and the order summoning the accused cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the High Court holding that there was compliance of the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside."

CRL.P. NO.101729 OF 2017 9.9. The petitioner-accused cannot be permitted to take advantage of such a delay. The matter being the year of 2005, the petitioner for one reason or the other has been delaying the matter so as to escape prosecution. In such a situation, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of non-enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. As stated above, the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has to be made by the Magistrate to come to a conclusion as to whether summons has to be issued or not only in order to protect an innocent accused from being prosecuted and/or travelling the distance to the Magistrate Court to defend himself. Having appeared on 03.09.2016 and thereafter having continued to appear, it cannot be said that there is any CRL.P. NO.101729 OF 2017 inconvenience which has been caused to the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the question of now raising this issue after a period of more than eleven months after appearance cannot be countenanced either under law or facts.

9.10.2. In the event of accused being an individual, if the said accused has a temporary residence within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, again merely because he does not have a permanent residence, there is no enquiry which is required to be conducted under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. It would, however, CRL.P. NO.101729 OF 2017 be required for the Magistrate to in the order of issuance of summons/process record as to why the enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C is not being held.