Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an advocate practicing in Goa, filed a criminal writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging an order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Kurla, Mumbai. The Magistrate had directed the Kurla Police Station to conduct an investigation under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in a complaint filed by Respondent No. 1 against seven persons, including the petitioner, for offences under Sections 120A, 120B, 182, 211, 406, 383, 384, 499, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The petitioner argued that the Magistrate failed to comply with Section 202(1)(b) CrPC by not examining the complainant on oath before ordering investigation, and that the Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Goa. Respondent No. 1 contended that the High Court at Goa lacked jurisdiction and that the petitioner was involved in extortion and threats. The court examined the record and found that the complainant had filed an affidavit in lieu of verification on 02.05.2023, which was marked as Exhibit-3, and held that this satisfied the requirement of Section 202(1)(b) CrPC. The court also held that since the petitioner resides in Goa and the impugned order affects her, the High Court at Goa has territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. On merits, the court found that the complaint disclosed prima facie allegations against the petitioner, including instigating the complainant's wife and threatening the complainant, and therefore the complaint was not an abuse of process. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Section 202(1)(b) CrPC - Examination of Complainant - Affidavit in lieu of verification - The Magistrate directed investigation under Section 202 CrPC after the complainant filed an affidavit in lieu of verification, which was kept on record as Exhibit-3. The court held that this complied with Section 202(1)(b) CrPC as the affidavit served as examination on oath. (Paras 19-20) B) Criminal Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction - Article 226 of Constitution - The petitioner, an advocate residing in Goa, challenged an order passed by a Magistrate in Mumbai. The court held that since the petitioner resides in Goa and the impugned order affects her, the High Court of Bombay at Goa has jurisdiction under Article 226. (Paras 22-24) C) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Abuse of Process - The court found that the complaint disclosed prima facie allegations against the petitioner, including instigating the complainant's wife and threatening the complainant. Therefore, the complaint was not an abuse of process and the petition was dismissed. (Paras 25-26)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate at Kurla directing investigation under Section 202 CrPC is illegal for non-compliance with Section 202(1)(b) CrPC and whether the High Court of Bombay at Goa has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge. The court held that the affidavit in lieu of verification filed by the complainant complied with Section 202(1)(b) CrPC, and that the High Court at Goa had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226. The court also found that the complaint disclosed prima facie allegations against the petitioner and was not an abuse of process.
Law Points
- Section 202(1)(b) CrPC compliance
- territorial jurisdiction under Article 226
- maintainability of writ petition against order for investigation
- abuse of process of court
