Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Janardan Mitharam Jangale, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the 6th J.M.F.C., Karad in Summary Criminal Complaint No. 820/2018 issuing process against him under Section 204(1) Cr.P.C., and the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Karad in Criminal Revision Application No. 47/2018 dismissing his revision. The background of the case is that Respondent No. 1, Shri Jagannath Rajaram Patil, filed a criminal complaint under Sections 499, 500, and 501 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner on 09.11.2016. On 02.12.2016, Respondent No. 1 filed his verification under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 777 of 2016. On 24.01.2017, the learned Magistrate directed an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, the Magistrate subsequently issued process under Section 204(1) Cr.P.C. on 18.04.2018 without completing the inquiry. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed a Criminal Revision Application No. 47/2018 before the Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Karad, which was dismissed on 22.01.2019. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court. The core legal issue was whether the issuance of process against the petitioner, who resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, without holding an inquiry as mandated under Section 202 Cr.P.C., is valid. The petitioner argued that since he was not residing within the jurisdiction of the 6th Jt. JMFC, Karad, the Magistrate was required to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing process, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar & Another (2017) 3 SCC 528. The respondent and the State opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 202 Cr.P.C. as the accused resided outside the jurisdiction. The court noted that the order dated 24.01.2017 directing an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was not followed, and the process was issued without any inquiry. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order issuing process dated 18.04.2018 and the revisional order dated 22.01.2019, and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Issuance of Process - Section 202 Cr.P.C. - Mandatory Inquiry - Where the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is mandatory before issuing process - The Magistrate failed to conduct such inquiry and issued process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. - Held that the order issuing process is illegal and liable to be set aside (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the issuance of process against the petitioner-accused, who resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, without holding an inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 18.04.2018 passed by the 6th J.M.F.C., Karad issuing process in Summary Criminal Complaint No. 820/2018 and the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by the Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Karad in Criminal Revision Application No. 47/2018, and remanded the matter back to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 202 Cr.P.C. mandatory inquiry
- accused residing outside jurisdiction
- issuance of process without inquiry invalid
- defamation complaint
- criminal revision dismissed
