District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

The Drill of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is Mandatory in Nature: High Court of Punjab & Haryana Sets Aside Summoning Order for Non-Compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. in Defamation Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set aside a summoning order in a defamation case for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The order, passed by Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, emphasized the necessity of an inquiry or investigation before issuing process against a person, especially when they reside outside the jurisdiction of the court.

The crux of the judgement revolves around the adherence to procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates an inquiry or investigation before summoning an individual accused of defamation under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The petitioner, Jasbir Singh, was accused of defaming the respondent, Manmohan Singh, via a WhatsApp message and was subsequently summoned by a Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner contested the summoning order, arguing that there was no compliance with the mandatory inquiry process under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing the summons.

Justice Brar, in his assessment, referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar (2017) and National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz (2013), as well as a previous judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. These cases underscored the importance of fulfilling the procedural requirements under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.

In particular, the Court observed that the summoning order dated October 4, 2023, was passed without conducting an inquiry or investigation as required under Section 202. The Court emphasized that such non-compliance rendered the summoning order unsustainable.

Conclusively, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the summoning order and remanding the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate for fresh consideration. The Magistrate was directed to comply with the procedural requisites under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before issuing any process.

Date of Decision: February 16, 2024

Jasbir Singh vs. Manmohan Singh

Latest Legal News