CRM No. M 21425 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 21425 of 2009 Date of decision: 09, 2009 Raj Kumar and others ........ petitioners Versus Kamlesh @ Parveen .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Dr. Amarpreet Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. D S Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint No. 40 of 03.10.2007 under Sections 498-A, 406, 307, 323, 312, 120-B of Indian Penal Code titled as Kamlesh @ Parveen v. Raj Kumar and others pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Sultanpur (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 11.04.2009 (Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, restricts her prayer only to the quashing of summoning order dated 11.04.2009 (Annexure CRM No. M 21425 of 2009 2 P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the summoning order could not have been passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class without holding an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. (as amended in 2006). It is further stated that it is mandatory for the Magistrate to postpone the issue of process in the manner as indicated under Section 202 Cr.P.C, if it is found that the petitioners are residing at the place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. The petitioners, herein, are residing at Jalandhar whereas, the respondents are residing at Kapurthala. Section 202 Cr.P.C. (as amended in 2006) read as under:- “202. Postponement of issue of process:- (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognisance 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 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.” From the perusal of the above provisions, it is apparent that the underline expression has been brought on the statute book for a specific purpose that an enquiry should be held before issuing the process of summon in case the petitioner is not residing at the place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction. CRM No. M 21425 of 2009 3 Learned for the respondents, however, states that since the distance between the two places is only 30 kilometres, Section 202 Cr.P.C. would not come into play. Be that as it may, fact remains that provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. have to be strictly complied with. It is not denied that the District Jalandhar is not within the jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala. This Court in the cases of 'Prem Kaur @ Premo v. Balwinder Kaur- 2009 (2) RCR (criminal) 4 and 'S K Bhowmik v. S.K. Arora'-2007(4) RCR(Criminal) 650 held that holding of an enquiry was obligatory wherein it was found that person is residing beyond jurisdiction. In para 7 of former judgement i.e. in Prem Kaur @ Premo, it was held that:- “7. The plea raised is totally denuded of merit. It would be apparent from a perusal of the quoted impugned provision of law that proper time in the context is when the matter comes up before the Court of law for consideration of preliminary evidence. It is then only that the Magistrate has to compulsively post-pone the issue of process in the indicated manner if it is found that “the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction.” It is, therefore, apparent that it was mandatory for the learned Magistrate to have first complied with the said provision and made an enquiry before issuing of the process vide order dated 11.04.2009. In view of the law laid down above, the summoning order dated 11.04.209 ( Annexure P-2) is hereby quashed and the Judicial Magistrate Ist CRM No. M 21425 of 2009 4 Class, Sultanpur Lodhi may proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. Disposed of accordingly. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge December 09, 2009 mohan