Case Note & Summary
The case involved a complaint filed by a respondent against several accused for offences under Sections 323, 380, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed on October 1, 2011, in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur, Murshidabad. The complainant alleged that the accused, who were officials of Karvy Stock Broking Limited, assaulted her and her husband during a discussion regarding a dispute over share trading. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and transferred it for inquiry to another Magistrate. The transferee Magistrate examined the complainant and her witnesses before issuing summons against the accused. The accused challenged the summons on the grounds that they resided outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction, arguing that an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary. The High Court rejected their applications, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Code, particularly Section 202, which mandates an inquiry when the accused resides beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The court noted that the inquiry is intended to prevent harassment from false complaints. It concluded that the Magistrate had indeed conducted the required inquiry before issuing the summons, thus dismissing the appeals.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inquiry Requirement - Mandatory Inquiry Before Summons - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 202 - The court held that when the accused resides beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, an inquiry under Section 202 is mandatory before issuing summons. This provision aims to prevent harassment of innocent persons by false complaints. The court found that the Magistrate had conducted the necessary inquiry before issuing the summons, thus upholding the process (Paras 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Magistrate was required to hold an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before issuing summons against the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, affirming that the Magistrate had conducted the required inquiry under Section 202 before issuing summons.
Law Points
- Cognizance of offences
- Inquiry under Section 202
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Examination of complainant
- Mandatory inquiry
