Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation

Magistrate's Summoning Order Faulted for Non-Compliance with Section 202 Cr.PC: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the criminal complaint against Shiv Jatia and others in relation to fraudulent LPG cylinder distribution and breach of trust. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, presiding over the matter, emphatically stated that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature and not criminal.

The apex court delved into the procedural aspects of issuing a summoning order under Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), particularly when the accused reside outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Court noted the mandatory requirements under this section, emphasizing that the summoning order against the appellants was passed without adherence to these mandatory procedures.

The case revolved around a criminal complaint filed against Shiv Jatia and others, alleging offenses under various sections of the IPC and the Essential Commodities Act. The appellants had earlier approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking to quash the complaint and summoning order, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the summoning of the appellants was procedurally correct and whether the dispute was criminal or civil in nature.

The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and the sequence of events leading to the summoning of the appellants. Justice Oka observed, "The entire dispute is of a civil nature arising out of a commercial transaction." The Court found that the Magistrate had issued the summoning order without waiting for a police report, as mandated by Section 202 of the Cr.PC, when the accused were residing outside its jurisdiction.

The Court also addressed the nature of the dispute, stating that the allegations and evidence presented pointed towards a commercial transaction rather than a criminal offense. The involvement of the appellants in the alleged criminal acts was not substantiated adequately.

Concluding that the continuation of the criminal complaint against Shiv Jatia and others would constitute an abuse of the process of law, the Supreme Court quashed the complaint against them. However, the case was allowed to proceed against other accused parties.

Date of Decision: 23rd February 2024

Shiv Jatia VS Gian Chand Malick & Ors.

Similar News