Mandatory Inquiry under Section 202 CrPC is Pre-requisite for Summoning Accused Residing Outside Territorial Jurisdiction

The Respondent filed Complaint Case No. 1012 of 2022 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that two cheques for Rs. 10 lakhs each issued by the Applicant were dishonored.

The complaint was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

However, the Applicant is a resident of District Nainital, falling outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Khatima court.

The Magistrate issued a summoning order on 29.07.2022 without conducting a preliminary inquiry or investigation.

The Applicant challenged this order under Section 482 Cr.P.C., asserting non-compliance with statutory mandates and citing a prior civil dispute.

Whether the summoning order is legally sustainable given the mandatory requirement of an inquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused resides outside the court's jurisdiction.

Whether the failure of the Magistrate to record satisfaction or apply judicial mind to the procedural requirements warrants the quashing of the proceedings.

The court primarily applied Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that a Magistrate "shall" postpone the issuance of process and conduct an inquiry or investigation if the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of that court.

The court emphasized that this provision is a substantive safeguard to protect persons from being mechanically summoned to distant jurisdictions.

Additionally, the court examined the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., noting that while inherent powers are exercised sparingly, they are justified when proceedings are vitiated by the non-compliance of a mandatory statutory condition precedent.

The court found that the Applicant's residence in District Nainital was undisputed, yet the ACJM, Khatima issued the summoning order without adhering to the proviso of Section 202 Cr.P.C.

Upon perusing the record, the court noted that the summoning order dated 29.07.2022 failed to reflect any preliminary inquiry, investigation, or application of judicial mind regarding the jurisdictional shift.

The court reasoned that this omission was not a mere technicality but a "procedural and jurisdictional" defect that went to the root of the matter.

While the Respondent argued that the complaint satisfied the basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court determined that the failure to fulfill the statutory condition precedent rendered the subsequent criminal proceedings an abuse of the court's process.

The court held that the non-compliance with Section 202 Cr.P.C. was a fundamental legal infirmity.

However, the court granted the Respondent the liberty to pursue the matter afresh, directing the Magistrate to proceed strictly in accordance with the law after complying with the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.