Calcutta High Court: While deciding whether the process issued against the petitioner by the Magistrate was valid considering the petitioner’s residence outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, a single-judge bench comprising of Subhendu Samanta,* J., held that the Magistrate had issued process against the petitioner without complying with the provisions of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which mandates the postponement of the issuance of process if the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The Court remanded the matter to the Magistrate for fresh orders in compliance with Section 202 of the CrPC.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash proceedings in complaint case pending before the Judicial Magistrate in relation to the complaint for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) filed complainant-opposite party 2 against the petitioner. Upon receiving the complaint, the Magistrate examined the complainant and issued process against the petitioner under Section 204 of the CrPC.
The Court observed that under Section 202 of the CrPC, if the accused person resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the issuance of process may be postponed, and an inquiry or investigation should be conducted to determine if there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. The Court referred to Narmada Prasad Sankar v. Sardar Abtar Singh Chabra, (2006) 9 SCC 601 and National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz, (2013) 2 SCC 488, which emphasised the importance of complying with Section 202 of the CrPC. The Court noted that the Magistrate had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 202, as no inquiry or investigation was conducted despite the petitioner residing outside the jurisdiction.
The Court set aside the order for the issuance of process against the petitioner and remanded the matter to the Magistrate. The Magistrate was directed to pass fresh orders in accordance with Section 202 of the CrPC within two months from the date of the order. The Court clarified that the decision did not address the merits of the allegations against the petitioner and left all points open to be decided in subsequent proceedings. The criminal revision was disposed of accordingly, and any connected applications were also disposed of.
[Blue Star Ltd. v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1228, order dated 07-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Subhendu Samanta
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Krishnendu Bhattacharya, Mr. Avishek Guha, Ms. Akansha Chopra and Mr. Priyankar Ganguly, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Imran Ali and Ms. Debjani Sahu, Counsel for the Respondent/State
Soham Dhara, Counsel for the Opposite Party
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
