Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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