Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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