Case Note & Summary
The applicant, daughter-in-law of respondent nos. 1 and 2, married their son on 18/12/2015 with the understanding that she would live in a joint family and join work post-marriage. Disputes arose as the applicant demanded separation from the respondents and allegedly refused to return to the matrimonial home unless her husband removed his parents and brother. She filed a complaint under Section 498A IPC against the respondents and others. In response, respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a private criminal complaint (O.M.A. No. 1023/2015, renumbered R.C.C. No. 3811/2016) before the JMFC, Thane, alleging offences under Sections 120B, 415, 504, 506, 406 and 340 IPC. The verification statement of respondent no. 1 was recorded on 07/05/2016, and on 16/05/2016 the Magistrate issued process against the applicant for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The applicant challenged this order via Criminal Application No. 1128/2018 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The core legal issue was compliance with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given that the applicant-accused resided in Pune, outside the local limits of the JMFC, Thane. The applicant argued that the Magistrate passed a cryptic order without any inquiry or reasons, in violation of Section 202 and the Supreme Court's decision in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar. The respondents relied on Rajeev Sawhney v. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. to contend that hearing the advocate and perusing documents was sufficient compliance. The High Court examined the impugned order and found that the Magistrate had not assigned any reasons or conducted an inquiry, as mandated when an accused resides outside the jurisdiction. The Court held that this rendered the order invalid, quashed and set aside the issuance of process, but granted liberty to the complainants to file a fresh complaint after following the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions. The criminal application was partly allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Process Issuance - Section 202 Cr.P.C. Inquiry Mandatory - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 202 - The applicant-accused resided outside the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Thane. The Magistrate issued process for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC without recording any reasons or conducting an inquiry. Held that this violated the mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court's guidelines in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar; the order was quashed, but liberty granted to file fresh complaint after complying with the provision. (Paras 6-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order issuing process against the applicant, who resides outside the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Thane, is valid in view of the non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry/reason requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as interpreted in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar & Anr.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the order issuing process, holding that the Magistrate failed to assign reasons or conduct an inquiry as required under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused resides outside the jurisdiction. Liberty granted to the complainant to file a fresh complaint after complying with the procedure under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and other relevant provisions. The criminal application was partly allowed and disposed of.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Process issued without inquiry/reason under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when accused outside jurisdiction is quashed
- reasoned order mandatory
- Supreme Court directions in Abhijit Pawar followed.
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 171
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1128 OF 2018
Citation not available, 2019:BHC-AS:25560
Mr. Swapnil S. Mhatre, Mr. Kaushik Jayant, Mr. Amol P. Mhatre, Mr. Nilesh Mandavkar, Mr. A.R. Patil
Mrs. Amruta Ajay Mane @ Amruta Manohar Gaikwad
Mr. Ramesh Dhodiba Mane, Mrs. Pushpa Ramesh Mane, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application challenging issuance of process in a private complaint under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, alleging non-compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. when accused resides outside magistrate's jurisdiction.
Remedy Sought
Applicant (original accused) seeks quashing of the order issuing process dated 16.05.2016.
Filing Reason
The applicant contended that she resides outside the jurisdiction of the JMFC, Thane, and the Magistrate failed to conduct inquiry or assign reasons as mandated by Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the Supreme Court's decision in Abhijit Pawar.
Previous Decisions
The JMFC, Thane by order dated 16.05.2016 issued process against the applicant for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. No other previous decisions mentioned.
Issues
Whether the order issuing process against the applicant, who resides outside the local jurisdiction of the court, is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory inquiry/reason requirement under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that since she resides outside the jurisdiction, Section 202 Cr.P.C. mandates an inquiry before issuing process, and the Magistrate passed a cryptic order without reasons, violating the law as per Abhijit Pawar.
Respondents argued that the Magistrate heard the advocate and applied mind to documents, which sufficiently complies with Section 202 Cr.P.C. as held in Rajeev Sawhney v. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd.
Ratio Decidendi
When an accused person resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the provisions of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, mandate that the Magistrate shall either conduct an inquiry himself or entrust it to the police, and pass a reasoned order. A cryptic order without any reasons reflecting compliance with this mandate is invalid. The Supreme Court's directions in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar (2017) 3 SCC 528 require strict adherence, and non-compliance vitiates the issuance of process.
Judgment Excerpts
Prima facie it appears that, the learned Magistrate without assigning any reasons in the impugned order, though learned Magistrate was obliged to give reasons so as to reflect in the order, whether the inquiry was conducted or otherwise, proceeded to issue summons to the Applicant.
In the facts of the present case, Applicant Accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of J.M.F.C, Thane and therefore, it was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate to cause the inquiry himself or entrust the said task with concerned Police officer.
the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 ... is quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The original complainants (respondents 1 and 2) filed O.M.A. No. 1023 of 2015 (later renumbered as R.C.C. No. 3811 of 2016) against the applicant and others for various offences under IPC. The JMFC, Thane recorded verification statement of respondent no. 1 on 07/05/2016, and on 16/05/2016 issued process against the applicant for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC. The applicant filed Criminal Application No. 1128 of 2018 in the High Court of Bombay, challenging the issuance of process. The High Court heard both sides and by judgment dated 26/08/2019 quashed the order issuing process, with liberty to file fresh complaint after due compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 504, 506, 120B, 415, 406, 340
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 202
