- In the case of Divyajot Singh Jendu vs. Manikaran Analytics Limited has held that a summons to an accused person under section 204 CrPC cannot be issued unless an inquiry under section 202 CrPC is held.
- In the instant case, the present revision petition was filed by the petitioner under section 482 CrPC praying for the quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the lower Court. The petitioner was accused of an offence under section 420 and 406 of IPC. It was alleged that after resigning from service he had wrongfully appropriated some valuable documents including a laptop. It was also contended that he had cheated the company and caused them wrongful loss.
- It was argued by the petitioner in the instant case that the entire case was lodged to harass the petitioner. It was also contended that the petitioner resides in New Delhi and but before issuing of summons, the Magistrate did not follow the mandatory procedure under section 202(1) of CrPC where it is stated that if the accused resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court then an inquiry has to be conducted under 202 CrPC.
- The Court observed that it is undisputed that the petitioner resides outside the jurisdiction of the Court and there is no document on record which shows that the petitioner had retained any valuable documents or a laptop.
- The Court also relied on an experience certificate which showed that the employer had found the petitioner to be a reliable and hardworking employee who was also a keen learner. This fact demolishes the allegation of cheating that was levelled on the petitioner.
- The Court referred to the judgement of Taylor vs Taylor (1876) where it was held that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down a method in which that power is to be exercised, then the said power is to be exercised in that manner only and in no other.
- The Court also relied on the landmark judgement of the SC in National Bank of Oman vs. Barakara Abdul Aziz wherein it was held that a magistrate receiving a complaint is duty bound to find out under section 202 CrPC if there is any substance in the allegation which calls for an investigation.
- Thus, the HC held that the lower Court had not complied with the mandatory provision of inquiry as laid down in section 202 CrPC.
- Accordingly, the revision was allowed and the order of summons was set aside. The case was remanded to the trial Court to issue fresh summons after complying with the provisions of section 202 CrPC.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
