RAM SWAROOP AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-229
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 30,2013

Ram Swaroop And Others Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.04.2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar whereby learned Magistrate, was pleased to summon the accused/petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
(2.) Undisputedly, petitioners are resident of District Bulandsahar beyond the territorial jurisdiction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Bank of Oman Vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another, 2013 2 SCC 488 has held as under :- "8. We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the C.J.M. Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the C.J.M. Ahmednagar. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. before issuing the process. 9. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court. The scope of enquiry under this Section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process has to be issued or not. Investigation under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient grounds for him to proceed further. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: (i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court (ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made our; and (iii) for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have. 10. Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was amended by the Cr.P.C. (Amendment Act 2005) and the following words were inserted: "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in whichhe exercises jurisdiction"
(3.) The notes on clauses for the abovementioned amendment read as follow: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In order to see that the innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend subsection (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 amendment has come into force w.e.f. 23.6.2006 vide notification No.S.O.923 (E) dt. 21.6.2006." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.