Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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