The Bombay High Court at Goa dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Agni, challenging the Magistrate's order directing an investigation by the Kurla Police Station under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The court found the petition premature, as the Magistrate had only directed an investigation, and no process had yet been issued against the petitioner. The court emphasized that no cause of action had arisen, as the Magistrate had not yet formed an opinion to proceed under Sections 203 or 204 of Cr.P.C.

1. Parties Involved:

   • Petitioner: Advocate Ashwini Agni (representing Respondent No. 2 in a matrimonial dispute).
   • Respondents: Kassim Jamuluddin Shaikh (Complainant), other proforma respondents, Kurla Police Station, and the State of Goa.

2. Case Background:

   • The petitioner was representing the wife of Respondent No. 1 in a matrimonial case. The Respondent accused her of being involved in an extortion attempt.
   • Respondent No. 1 filed a private complaint with the Magistrate at Kurla, Mumbai, after Kurla Police Station did not take cognizance of his complaint.
   • The complaint alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including conspiracy, extortion, defamation, and threats.

3. Magistrate's Order:

   • On 16th June 2023, the Metropolitan Magistrate, Kurla, directed an investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by the Kurla Police Station.
   • The petitioner challenged this order, seeking its quashing, alleging that the complaint had no territorial jurisdiction and was filed in bad faith.

4. Petitioner's Arguments:

   • The petitioner argued that the Magistrate's order was illegal as there was no verification of the complainant's statement under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.
   • The petitioner also contended that the alleged cause of action occurred in Goa, not Mumbai, and therefore, the Kurla Magistrate lacked jurisdiction.
   • It was further argued that the petitioner was only acting in her capacity as an advocate and had no involvement in the alleged extortion.

5. Court's Findings:

   • The court found that the Magistrate had complied with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. by accepting the complainant’s affidavit for verification.
   • It ruled that the petition was premature, as the Magistrate had not yet issued any process against the petitioner under Sections 203 or 204 of Cr.P.C.
   • The court held that the petitioner’s status as an accused was not yet confirmed and that the investigation report from Kurla Police Station would determine whether there was sufficient ground to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court determined that challenging an order under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before the issuance of process is premature, as no cause of action arises until the Magistrate forms an opinion based on the investigation report. The court also held that the petitioner’s apprehension about the issuance of process does not justify invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Relevant Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 202 Cr.P.C.: Magistrate's power to postpone the issuance of process and direct an investigation.
• Sections 120A, 120B, 182, 211, 406, 383, 384, 499, 506, IPC: Allegations related to conspiracy, extortion, defamation, and criminal intimidation.
• Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Inherent powers of the court to prevent abuse of process.

Subjects:

Criminal writ petition challenging the Magistrate’s order under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

Criminal Law, Section 202 Cr.P.C., Advocate, Jurisdiction, Premature Petition, Investigation, Extortion Allegations.