Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

Bombay High Court Upholds Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 Cr.P.C. for Accused Residing Outside Jurisdiction

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Bombay High Court, in a landmark decision, has reinforced the mandatory nature of conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in instances where the accused is not within the court’s jurisdiction. This crucial interpretation came in the legal battle of Bansilal S. Kabra vs Global Trade Finance Limited & Anr, focusing on the application of Section 202 in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The Court delved into whether the amendment in Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., necessitating an inquiry before issuing process when the accused is outside the jurisdiction, is mandatory or directory. This issue has been a subject of divergent opinions in judicial precedents.

The applicant, Bansilal S. Kabra, challenged the approach towards the application of Section 202 in cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The primary issue was the mandatory or directory nature of the inquiry mandated by the amended Section 202.

The Court noted, “Summoning of an accused is a serious matter requiring a careful examination of allegations and evidence.” The judgment emphasized that the magistrate’s duty is to scrutinize allegations and separate unfounded claims before issuing a process, especially when the accused is outside jurisdiction. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in suo motu Writ Petition (CRL) No.2 of 2020, which clarified the mandatory nature of inquiry under Section 202 for complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Court underscored the principles behind Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and its amendment, highlighting the necessity to prevent unnecessary harassment of the accused residing outside the jurisdiction. The judgment noted, “The inquiry must be aimed at ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the allegations.”

The Court concluded that the inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature. This is to ensure that a prima facie case exists before issuing the process against an accused residing outside the jurisdiction. The judgment clarifies the procedural requirements for magistrates in handling such complaints.

Dated: January 16, 2024

Bansilal S. Kabra vs Global Trade Finance Limited & Anr

 

Latest Legal News