Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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