The Allahabad High Court observed that as per Section 202(1) of CrPC if an accused resides outside the jurisdiction of a Magistrate, it is mandatory for such Magistrate to proceed under Section 204 of CrPC. that he may either investigate the matter himself or direct an inquiry.
The division bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan further observed that as per the provision of section 202 of CrPC. (as amended with effect from 23.06.2006), the requirement is that in cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate concerned exercises his jurisdiction, the Magistrate shall, before issuing the process Inspection is mandatory.
What is the whole matter?
Essentially, a woman had complained against her in-laws (petitioner before the court) that they harass her mentally and physically. Along with this, after about 7 months of marriage, she was sent back to her parents’ house.
The complaint further stated that when he came to know that they were not interested in bringing her back, he requested them to return his woman’s money. However, they did not return him. Hence, she was pursuing the complaint immediately.
Now on this complaint, the in-law’s party Geeta and 4 others (petitioners) were summoned by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ghaziabad under the order dated September 15, 2021.
Challenging the said summoning order of the magistrate, the petitioners moved the court with their 482 CrPC petition for quashing the summons order passed in a case under section 406 IPC. They argue that the address of the applicants mentioned in the complaint is Bengaluru, hence they are residents of Bengaluru, but the concerned magistrate sitting at Ghaziabad ignored the applicants and the provision of Section 202 of CrPC was not complied with.
Finally, it is submitted that the procedure laid down in the said provision is mandatory which imposes an obligation on the Magistrate to ensure that before summoning an accused who resides outside his jurisdiction, the Magistrate He will personally investigate the matter. shall be made by any police officer or such other person as he thinks fit, to ascertain whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused.
At the outset, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments in Vijay Dhanuka v Najima Mamtaj (2014) 14 SCC, Abhijir Pawar v Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar et al., (2017) 2 SCC 528 and Sunil Todi v State of Gujarat 2021 SCC Online SC 1174 638 did.
The bench said,
“Section 202(1) of CrPC, as the case may be, mandates inquiry before issuing summons against accused persons who are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned. In view of the above, the order is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.” deserves to go.”
The application under section 482 of CrPC was allowed by the court and the impugned order was quashed. Simultaneously, the matter has been remanded back to the trial court for further proceedings, in accordance with the law, especially keeping in view the provisions of section 202(1) of the CrPC.
Case Title: Geeta & 4 others vs U.P. State & Other Case Citation: 2022