Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta 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.

Similar News