Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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