Allahabad High Court
Rajkumar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 June, 2022
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16851 of 2022
Applicant :- Rajkumar And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Laxmi Narayan Rathour
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 20.3.2020 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of Complain Case No. 697 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323 and 504 IPC, Police Station Konch District Jalaun, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Konch District Jalaun. It is urged that the accused applicants are resident of Bhopal, State of Madhya Pradesh and are, therefore, residing beyond the jurisdiction of the magistrate concerned and as such the process could not have been issued against them without conducting an inquiry in view of the language employed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. In support of such contention, learned counsel places reliance upon an order passed by this Court in application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No.1230 of 2022 ( Smt. Getta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) in which reliance is placed on previous judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter in issue. In Abhijir Pawar Vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, (2017) 2 SCC 528 the Supreme Court after referring to the provisions contained under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has observed as under:-
"Admitted position in law is that in those cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate to conduct an enquiry or investigation before issuing the process. Section 202 Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2005 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from 22-6-2006 by adding the words ?and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction?. There is a vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to ward off false complaints against such persons residing at a far-off places in order to save them from unnecessary harassment. Thus, the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to conduct enquiry or direct investigation before issuing the process, so that false complaints are filtered and rejected. The aforesaid purpose is specifically mentioned in the note appended to the Bill proposing the said amendment."
Same principle has been followed in the case of Sunil Todi Vs. State of Gujrat, reported in 2021 SCC online, SC 1174.
The statutory scheme has been elaborately examined in the aforesaid judgment to hold that where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area of its jurisdiction then the concerned magistrate before issuing process is to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process.
In the facts of the case, after complaint had been instituted, the Magistrate has recorded the statement of witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and it is only after that the process itself has been issued. The requirement of holding inquiry by the Magistrate before issuing the process stands adequately satisfied once the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. have been recorded by the magistrate concerned. The applicants, therefore, are not entitled to any relief on the basis of the aforesaid judgment.
Even otherwise, the complaint prima-facie, discloses commissioning of cognizable offence, and the order issuing summons cannot be faulted. The order, otherwise, reflects judicial application of mind on the part of the court concerned. No good ground, therefore, is made out to interfere in the order of Magistrate.
Application is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.6.2022
n.u.
