LI Network
Published on: 25 August 2023 at 11:44 IST
The Supreme Court has emphasized that the procedure outlined in Section 202(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is mandatory when one of the accused individuals resides outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
In a recent case, the complainant had filed a complaint before a Magistrate, alleging offenses punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Magistrate issued summons after examining the complainant. Subsequently, the accused individuals approached the High Court, arguing that some of them were residing beyond the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, and therefore, the mandatory requirement of Section 202(1) of the CrPC had not been followed.
The High Court quashed the summons order and referred the complaint back to the Magistrate to address it from the Section 202 stage.
Rejecting the Special Leave Petition filed by the complainant, the Supreme Court bench stated:
“There cannot be any doubt that in view of the use of the word ‘shall’ in sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC and the object of amendment made by Act No. 25 of 2005, the provision will have to be held as mandatory in a case where the accused is residing at a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate.
In fact, in paragraph No.12 of the aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, this Court held that in a case where one of the accused is a resident of a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, following the procedure under sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC is mandatory.”
The Court further pointed out that even substantial compliance had not been met by the Magistrate in this particular case.
