Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.678-681 OF 2014
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NOS.5090-5093 of 2013)
VIJAY DHANUKA ETC. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
NAJIMA MAMTAJ ETC. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J.
Petitioners have been summoned in a complaint
case for commission of offence under Section 323,
JUDGMENT
380 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”.
Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint in the Court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jangipur,
st
Murshidabad on 1 of October, 2011, who after
taking cognizance of the same, transferred the
Page 1
2
complaint to the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Jangipur, Murshidabad for inquiry and disposal.
According to the allegation in the complaint
petition, accused no.1 Rajdip Dey is sub-broker of
Karvy Stock Broking Limited; whereas other accused
persons are its officials posted at Kolkata and
Hyderabad. The complainant alleged to be its
investor and claimed to have purchased shares from
Karvi Stock Broking Ltd. through the sub-broker,
accused No. 1. According to the complaint, a
dispute arose over trading of shares between the
complainant and the accused persons and to settle
the on-going dispute, the accused persons offered
a proposal to the complainant who consented to it
JUDGMENT
th
and accordingly, on 11 of September, 2011,
accused persons visited at her residence at
Raghunathganj Darbeshpara to have a discussion
with the complainant and her husband. According to
the allegation, the discussion did not yield any
result and the accused persons started shouting at
them. Some of the accused persons, according to
Page 2
3
the allegation, took out a pistol from their bag
and put the same over the heads of the complainant
and her husband. It is alleged that they assaulted
the complainant and her husband with fists and
slaps and also abused them and coerced the
complainant to sign some papers and snatched away
the suitcase containing some papers. The aforesaid
st
complaint was filed on 1 of October, 2011 in the
Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jangipur, Murshidabad. The learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offence and transferred the
case to the Court of another Magistrate for
inquiry and disposal. On receipt of the record,
the transferee Magistrate adjourned the case to
st
31 of October, 2011. On the said date, the
JUDGMENT
complainant and her witnesses were present. The
complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and
the two witnesses namely Enamul Haque and Masud
st
Ali were also examined. Order dated 31 of
October, 2011 shows that they were examined under
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”). The
transferee Magistrate, thereafter, adjourned the
Page 3
4
case for orders and on the adjourned date, i.e.
th
15 of November, 2011, he directed for issuance of
summons against the accused persons for offence
under Section 323, 380 and 506 read with Section
34 of the IPC. It is relevant here to state that
in the complaint, the residence of the accused has
been shown at a place beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Petitioners challenged the order issuing
process in four separate applications filed under
Section 482 of the Code before the High Court,
inter alia, contending that the accused persons
being residents of an area outside the territorial
jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate who had
JUDGMENT
issued summons, an inquiry within the meaning of
Section 202 of the Code was necessary. It was
also contended that only after inquiry under
Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate
was required to come to the conclusion as to
whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding
against the accused persons. Said submission did
not find favour with the High Court and by common
Page 4
5
th
order dated 19 of February, 2013, it rejected all
the applications. It is against this common order
that the petitioners have filed these special
leave petitions.
Leave granted.
Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that
the accused persons admittedly were residing at a
place beyond the area in which the learned
Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction, hence, an
inquiry under Section 202 of the Code was sine qua
non . He submits that in the present case, the
learned Magistrate has not held inquiry as
JUDGMENT
envisaged under Section 202 of the Code.
Ms. Nidhi, learned counsel representing
respondent no.1, however, submits that, in fact,
the learned Magistrate before issuing the process
has held an inquiry contemplated under the law and
the order issuing process cannot be faulted on the
ground that no inquiry was held. In view of the
Page 5
6
rival submissions, we deem it expedient to examine
the scheme of the Code.
In the present case, we are concerned with an
order passed in a complaint case. Section 190 of
the Code provides for cognizance of offences by
Magistrates and the same reads as follows:
“190. Cognizance of offences by
Magistrates .-(1) Subject to the
provisions of this Chapter, any
Magistrate of the first class, and
any Magistrate of the second class
specially empowered in this behalf
under sub-section(2), may take
cognizance of any offence-
(a)upon receiving a complaint
of facts which constitute such
offence;
(b)upon a police report of such
facts;
JUDGMENT
(c)upon information received
from any person other than a
police officer, or upon his own
knowledge, that such offence
has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate
may empower any Magistrate of the
second class to take cognizance
under sub-section(1) of such
offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try.”
Page 6
7
Section 190 of the Code finds place in Chapter
XIV and from its plain reading, it is evident that
the competent Magistrate, inter alia, may take
cognizance of any offence, subject to the
provisions of Chapter XIV, upon receiving a
complaint of facts which constitute an offence.
Section 192 of the Code empowers any Chief
Judicial Magistrate to transfer the case for
inquiry after taking cognizance to a competent
Magistrate subordinate to him. In the present
case, on receipt of the complaint, the learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in exercise
of the power under Section 192 of the Code, after
taking cognizance of the offence, had made over
the case for inquiry and disposal to the
JUDGMENT
transferee Magistrate. Section 12(2) of the Code
confers on Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
the same powers as that of a Chief Judicial
Magistrate. Hence, transfer of the case by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after taking
cognizance of the case to transferee Magistrate
for inquiry and disposal is perfectly in tune with
the provisions of the Code. The transferee
Page 7
8
Magistrate, thereafter, examined the complainant
and her witnesses and only thereafter issued the
process.
Section 200 of the Code, inter alia , provides
for examination of the complainant on oath and the
witnesses present, if any. Same reads as follows:
“ 200. Examination of complainant . –
A Magistrate taking cognizance of
an offence on complaint shall
examine upon oath the complainant
and the witnesses present, if any,
and the substance of such
examination shall be reduced to
writing and shall be signed by the
complainant and the witnesses, and
also by the Magistrate:
Provided that, when the complaint
is made in writing, the Magistrate
need not examine the complainant
and the witnesses-
JUDGMENT
(a) If a public servant acting or
purporting to act in the discharge
of his official duties or a court
has made the complaint; or
(b) If the Magistrate makes over
the case for inquiry, or trial to
another Magistrate under section
192:
Provided further that if the
Magistrate makes over the case to
another Magistrate under section
192 after examining the complainant
and the witnesses, the latter
Page 8
9
Magistrate need not re-examine
them.”
Under Section 200 of the Code, on presentation
of the complaint by an individual, other than
public servant in certain contingency, the
Magistrate is required to examine the complainant
on solemn affirmation and the witnesses present,
if any. Thereafter, on perusal of the allegations
made in the complaint, the statement of the
complainant on solemn affirmation and the
witnesses examined, if any, various options are
available to him. If he is satisfied that the
allegations made in the complaint and statements
of the complainant on oath and the witnesses
constitute an offence, he may direct for issuance
JUDGMENT
of process as contemplated under Section 204 of
the Code. In case, the Magistrate is of the
opinion that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding, the option available to him is to
dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the
Code. If on examination of the allegations made
in the complaint and the statement of the
Page 9
1
complainant on solemn affirmation and the
witnesses examined, the Magistrate is of the
opinion that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding, the option available to him is to
postpone the issue of process and either inquire
the case himself or direct the investigation to be
made by a police officer or by any other person as
he thinks fit. This option is also available after
the examination of the complainant only. However,
in a case in which the accused is residing at a
place beyond the area in which the Magistrate
exercises his jurisdiction whether it would be
mandatory to hold inquiry or the investigation as
he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether
or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding,
JUDGMENT
is the question which needs our determination. In
this connection, it is apt to refer to Section 202
of the Code which provides for postponement of
issue of process. The same reads as follows:
“
202. Postponement of issue of
process .-(1) Any Magistrate, on
receipt of a complaint of an
offence of which he is authorised
to take cognizance or which has
been made over to him under section
Page 10
1
192, may, if he thinks fit, and
shall, in a case where the accused
is residing at a place beyond the
area in which he exercises his
jurisdiction postpone the issue of
process against the accused, and
either inquire into the case
himself or direct an investigation
to be made by a police officer or
by such other person as he thinks
fit, for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction
for investigation shall be made-
(a)where it appears to the
Magistrate that the offence
complained of is triable
exclusively by the Court of
Sessions; or
(b)where the complaint has not
been made by a Court, unless
the complainant and the
witnesses present, if any, have
been examined on oath under
Section 200.
JUDGMENT
(2) In an inquiry under sub-
section(1), the Magistrate may, if
he thinks fit, take evidence of
witness on oath:
Provided that if it appears to
the Magistrate that the offence
complained of is triable
exclusively by the court of
Session, he shall call upon the
complainant to produce all his
witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under sub-
section(1) is made by a person not
Page 11
1
being a police officer, he shall
have for that investigation all the
powers conferred by this Code on an
officer in charge of a police
station except the power to arrest
without warrant.”
(underlining ours)
Section 202 of the Code, inter alia,
contemplates postponement of the issue of the
process “in a case where the accused is residing
at a place beyond the area in which he exercises
his jurisdiction” and thereafter to either inquire
into the case by himself or direct an
investigation to be made by a police officer or by
such other person as he thinks fit. In the face
of it, what needs our determination is as to
whether in a case where the accused is residing at
JUDGMENT
a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate
exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory
or not. The words “and shall, in a case where the
accused is residing at a place beyond the area in
which he exercises his jurisdiction” was inserted
by Section 19 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f.
rd
23 of June, 2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the
Page 12
1
opinion of the legislature, was essential as false
complaints are filed against persons residing at
far off places in order to harass them. The note
for the amendment reads as follows:
“False complaints are filed
against persons residing at far off
places simply to harass them. In
order to see that innocent persons
are not harassed by unscrupulous
persons, this clause seeks to amend
sub-section (1) of Section 202 to
make it obligatory upon the
Magistrate that before summoning
the accused residing beyond his
jurisdiction he shall enquire into
the case himself or direct
investigation to be made by a
police officer or by such other
person as he thinks fit, for
finding out whether or not there
was sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.”
The use of the expression ‘shall’ prima facie
JUDGMENT
makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the
case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The
word “shall” is ordinarily mandatory but
sometimes, taking into account the context or the
intention, it can be held to be directory. The
use of the word “shall” in all circumstances is
not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid
Page 13
1
principle, when we look to the intention of the
legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent
innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous
persons from false complaints. Hence, in our
opinion, the use of the expression “shall” and the
background and the purpose for which the amendment
has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind
that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may
be, is mandatory before summons are issued against
the accused living beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the Magistrate. In view of the
decision of this Court in the case of
Udai
Shankar Awasthi v. State of Uttar Pradesh,(2013) 2
SCC 435 , this point need not detain us any further
as in the said case, this Court has clearly held
JUDGMENT
that the provision aforesaid is mandatory. It is
apt to reproduce the following passage from the
said judgment:
“40 . The Magistrate had issued
summons without meeting the
mandatory requirement of Section
202 CrPC, though the appellants
were outside his territorial
jurisdiction. The provisions of
Section 202 CrPC were amended vide
the Amendment Act, 2005, making it
Page 14
1
mandatory to postpone the issue of
process where the accused resides
in an area beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the Magistrate
concerned. The same was found
necessary in order to protect
innocent persons from being
harassed by unscrupulous persons
and making it obligatory upon the
Magistrate to enquire into the case
himself, or to direct investigation
to be made by a police officer, or
by such other person as he thinks
fit for the purpose of finding out
whether or not, there was
sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused before issuing
summons in such cases.”
(underlining ours)
In view of our answer to the aforesaid
question, the next question which falls for our
determination is whether the learned Magistrate
before issuing summons has held the inquiry as
JUDGMENT
mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word
“inquiry” has been defined under Section 2(g) of
the Code, the same reads as follows:
“ 2. xxx xxx xxx
(g)”inquiry” means every inquiry,
other than a trial, conducted under
this Code by a Magistrate or Court;
xxx xxx xxx”
Page 15
1
It is evident from the aforesaid provision,
every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the
Magistrate or Court is an inquiry. No specific
mode or manner of inquiry is provided under
Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged
under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are
examined whereas under Section 200 of the Code,
examination of the complainant only is necessary
with the option of examining the witnesses
present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate,
for the purpose of deciding whether or not there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under
Section 202 of the Code. In the present case, as
JUDGMENT
we have stated earlier, the Magistrate has
examined the complainant on solemn affirmation and
the two witnesses and only thereafter he had
directed for issuance of process.
In view of what we have observed above, we do
not find any error in the order impugned.
Page 16
1
In the result, we do not find any merit in
the appeals and the same are dismissed
accordingly.
………………………………………………………………J
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
………………………………………………………………J
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 27, 2014.
JUDGMENT
Page 17
JUDGMENT
Page 18