Date of Order:
April 26,2024.
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Judge
Parties:
Appellant: Mr. R. Shankar Raman Whole Time Director & Chief Financial Officer
Respondents: State of U.P.
Subject:
The case involves issuance of orders by the magistrate to summon the accused who resided in another part of India, which was beyond the exercise of his power under Section 202 of CrPC. When moved to the High Court, the court heard the counsels from both the sides and decided that there was a lack of investigations/inquiries done to summon the accuses which violated the amended protocols of the law (in 2005). Hence, the court ultimately allowed the petitions from the sides of the appellants for quashing the proceedings.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
INDIAN CONSTITUTION:
Article 226: Gives the High Court the power to entertain writs.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
Section 482 Cr.P.C.: Gives the Magistrate the power to handle situations when a complaint is filed (He can use this power to delay in issuing the summons.).
Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.: Gives the High Court to serve justice by means of cancelling a criminal case if it wastes the time of the Court.
OVERVIEW (Brief Facts)
- In this case the main basis laid around the main issue revolved around the filing of 4 petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- Although, with the consent of the parties’s counsel all the aforesaid petitions were clubbed.
- In the petitions it was basically requested by the appellants, to quash the complaint case which was filed under section 323, 504, 506, 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code relating to Police Station Qaiserbagh, Lucknow, in 2017.
- The aforementioned came from a pending case in the court of First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow as well as the summoning order passed in 2018 by Sri Ritesh Sachdeva, the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.
- It was additionally requested for the quashing of an order by the 1st Addl District Judge passed in Criminal Revision, also in 2018.
ISSUES RAISED
The core issues that were raised in this case were related to:
- Are the petitions that were filed valid?
- Were the Protocols followed by the Magistrate?
- Whether the territorial jurisdiction is a matter of importance?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- The appellant counsel contended that the various petitioner’s offices were present in Chennai and they never visited Lucknow on the date(s) of the incident.
- Further adding to it, it was stated that the primary role of the petitioners was policy-making on a day-to-day basis.
- It was mentioned by the counsel that the allegations made against the petitioners were untrue, and contained inherent falsity, discrepancies, self-contradictory allegations. It was pressed as the highly discrepant versions of the complainant varied at different junctures. This was inclusive of what was mentioned in the affidavit and what was said in the summoning(these mentions were drastically different from each other.
- Hence, based on these variations, it was requested that these grounds were not sufficient for pressing criminal charges.Additionally, it was stated that the Judge who considered/heard this plea did not focus on this segment of variation and charged the accused with various other criminal offences.
- The counsel also submitted that the appellants got a total sum of Rs.58,00,000 (this was submitted by the means of 3 cheques on different dates) and later on one blank cheque was given to the Company(accused) by the complainant/opposite Party (No. 2).
- The aforementioned cheques were a means of compensation provided by the opposite party to the company caused due to kickbacks and losses (this was said to have been affirmed by the respondents in their statements under Section 200 Cr. P.C).
- On the summoning made earlier, it was pressed on the fact that according to the amended Section 202 Cr. P.C(2005), it becomes mandatory to postpone the process if the accused resided in an area that was out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- The respondent’s counsel referring the statements by the appellants stated that the reason why the Magistrate did not give the reason while charging them was because the order was a ‘non speaking order’, and according to it the reasons are not to be necessarily given.
- It was further added that the allegations made by the appellants against the respondents about not mentioning the whole truth. It was stated that the complainer did not admit his indulgence in illegal activities such as signing six documents that were illegal.
- These incidents which were illegal were admitted to have been committed by the opposition as they benefited him
- There were no steps taken to cash out the cheques after the sanctions for many days and eventually there was a meeting held in which was attended by him. Hence, this version of the complaint seemed off or unworthy of credence.
- It was also stated that the opposite party’s complaint case is pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I. This was termed as a bonafide complaint as the petitioners have committed serious offence previously,
- It was mentioned that the complainant was made a scapegoat and there were various inconsistencies in the deponents.
- It was pressed that the deponent in the petition was not the petitioner who filed the petition (this basically meant that the person who signed the petition originally was different from the one who filed it). It was referred to as against the criminal law. This was supported by the means of a case.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- After the briefing of facts, the Court found that the accused were not even present nor were they posted in Lucknow on the alleged date.
- Attention of the Court was drawn towards the legal impediment in how the case was handled earlier.
- It was inferred that there are necessary steps that are to be taken by the judge before passing a summoning order as per section 202(1) Criminal Procedure Code.
- The court stated that the protocols/steps were not properly followed by the judge earlier in the previous judgement even though the accused were not residing in Lucknow. (i.e did not follow the aforesaid provisions of Cr. P.C).
- Regarding the stated forceful attaining of the signatured on the cheque, the court also found that there was an e-mail sent (regarding resignation) by the complainant but it did not contain any complaints regarding signatures under duress. Rather, it included praises for the company.
- At the same time the Court acknowledged that if an aggrieved comes for justice to get the FIR/criminal proceedings quashed mainly on the basis that these proceedings were/are frivolous or for motive of vengeance. The Court must look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.
- The case referred by the respondents regarding the difference in persons for filing and signing the petition(which was against the criminal law) was termed as irrelevant to the present case.
- The Court acknowledged the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C, but at the same time disputed the determination of questions of fact at the stage of its exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
- But the Court stated it would examine the facts and the allegations to find out whether the impugned proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court.
- Referring to a few judgements and statements of the Supreme Court regarding procedures to be followed before criminal summoning, the High Court stated that the learned Magistrate did not comply with section 202(1), Cr.P.C.Thus, it was held by the opposite party no. 2 did not make the correct deposition.
- It was emphasized on the fact that if a person resided outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction, there should be proper protocols/inquiry or investigation before summons are made.In this case the Learned Magistrate failed to conduct even a basic preliminary inquiry.
- Accordingly, all the aforesaid petitions filed under section 482, CrPC were allowed.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the Court carefully examined the provisions of CrPC and stated that there was a violation on the part of the Magistrate as he failed to follow proper protocols for summoning an accused. Hence, the court clubbed the four petitions which were requesting the quashing of these proceedings along with the summoning order. Therefore after analyzing the key arguments and the relevant precedents(by the Apex Court) on the scope of section 202 CrPC it was declared the proceedings held earlier were a miscarriage to justice.
