Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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