Mandatory Enquiry/Investigation U/S 202 CrPC Before Issuing Process Is To Filter False Cases: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court observed that it is mandatory for the Court to conduct an enquiry under Section 202 CrPC so that false complaints against the people residing beyond its jurisdiction are filtered and rejected.
The bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan while noting the 2005 amendment to section 202 CrPC observed, “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.”
Advocate Dileep Kumar appeared for the Appellant.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner, R. Shankar Raman, along with other officials of Larsen and Toubro Limited, are based in Chennai and were not in Lucknow during the alleged incident of beating and threatening by two people. They hold policy-making roles and are not involved in day-to-day project activities. The complaint involves three cheques totalling Rs. 58,00,000 given to the company on different dates in 2017, along with an additional blank cheque obtained under the pretext of "confidential responsibilities."
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and another, (2017) 3 SCC 528 where as per the Court SC observed that 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 inquiry or investigation before issuing the process.
The Court also noted that Section 202 Cr.P.C. was amended in the year 2005 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, 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.
According to the Court, there is a vital purpose or objective behind this amendment, namely, to avoid false complaints against such persons residing at a far-off place in order to save them from unnecessary harassment.
The Court notes that the magistrate failed to conduct even a basic preliminary inquiry to ascertain the roles and duties of the individuals before mechanically summoning all the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint.
The Court quashed the complaint case and summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Consequently, the Court allowed the Petitions.
