CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC 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 Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

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.

Latest Legal News