IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.5702-M of 2008 Date of Decision:18.4.2011 Namrata Anand .... Petitioner Versus Shanta Sethani .... Respondent And Crl. M. No.5969-M of 2008 Date of Decision:18.4.2011 Namrata Anand .... Petitioner Versus Shanta Sethani .... Respondent And Crl. M. No.6315-M of 2008 Date of Decision:18.4.2011 Smt. Veena Kohli .... Petitioner Versus Shanta Sethani .... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the respondent. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) By this common order, Crl. M. No.5702-M of 2008, Crl. M. No.5969-M of 2008 and Crl. M. No.6315-M of 2008 shall be disposed of together wherein the prayer is for quashing of the complaint under Sections 406/498-A/506 IPC (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very out set states that he is not addressing the arguments on merits and is reserving his right to Crl. M. No.5702-M of 2008 -2- challenge the complaint subsequently on merits at later stage, if so required. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are residents of Himachal. Whereas the complaint has been filed at Patiala i.e. out side the Jurisdiction of First Class Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. While raising the legal issue, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Magistrate at Patiala has passed the summoning order without complying the mandatory provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. Thus, without touching the issue on merits, the only question, in hand, is as to whether, it was mandatory for the trial Court to conduct an enquiry as per mandate of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. or not. This issue was dealt in detail by this Court in the case titled as Savera Sidhu v. Harleen Sidhu and another vide Crl. Misc. No.M-7689 of 2009 decided on 14.10.2010 after relying on the judgment rendered in the case of S.K. Bhowmik v. S.K. Arora reported as 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 650, as well as, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Shivjeet Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary and others reported as 2010 (7) SCC 578, wherein, it was held that the enquiry as envisaged under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. was mandatory, in case, the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, where the complaint is filed. The said issue, in the facts of the present case being squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Savera Sidhu (supra), it was incumbent upon the Magistrate to hold an enquiry as envisaged in the said Section and comply with the mandate of Section 202 (1) Cr.P.C. Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “202. Postponement of issue of process:- Crl. M. No.5702-M of 2008 -3- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorized to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under Section 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 enquire into the case himself of 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.” The purpose behind this amendment can well be noticed from the draft accompanying the amendment. This is as follows: “ Clause 19-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 proceedings against the accused.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent does not Crl. M. No.5702-M of 2008 -4- dispute the said legal position. In view of the above, order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-2) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Court with a direction to pass fresh order after complying with the provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. Disposed of in the above terms. Copy of the order be placed in the connected cases. 18.4.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE