Mr. P. B. Vinod Kumar v. State of West Bengal & Anr

#7. That prima facie no criminal offence of cheating against the petitioner is made out as it is stated in the complaint that the petitioner has made a part payment of Rs.75,000/- and balance payment is due against sale of materials.

#8. The petitioner submits that it is settled law that for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had with fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise or representation deceived the accused person, but such element is missing in the complaint filed by the petitioner and also in the deposition under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

#9. Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Learned Magistrate while issuing the summons to the petitioner has failed to appreciate that no case has been made out against the petitioner so as to hold that he should face the criminal trial.

#10. That on the face of the materials on the record the accusations against the petitioner cannot stand and it would be travesty of justice if the petitioner is compelled to appear and relegated to trial and in such a case, to prevent injustice and abuse of process of law, the impugned proceedings should be quashed. 4

#11. In spite of due service there is no representation on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

#12. In the present case, the complaint has been filed against the petitioner/accused, whose only address as given in the petition of complaint is:- “Mr. P.B. Vinod Kumar, Proprietor of Archana Saree World at K M K Junction, North Paravur, District- Ernakulam, Kerala-683513”.

#13. The petitioner has been made an accused as the proprietor of his firm. The order issuing process dated 08.04.2019 is as follows:- “Dated 08.04.2019 Today is fixed for S/A. Complainant is present & examine u/s 200 Cr.P.C. On perusal it appears by examination U/s 200 Cr.P.C. complainant is able to make out prima facie case against accused person U/s 420/406 I.P.C. So let the process be issued. Complainant is directed to file requisites at once. To 12/6/19 for S/R”. Sd/- Metropolitan Magistrate 13th Court, Calcutta”

#14. The transaction in this case is from 26th March, 2012 to 6th April, 2012. Part payment has been made. (A short period and a one time transaction).

#15. Section 202 Cr.P.C. lays down:- “202. Postponement of issue of process. - (1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, [and is authorised 5 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 inquire 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: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,-- (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub- section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub- section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer- in- charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.”

#16. In Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 638, on March 27, 2014, the Supreme Court held:- “11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process “in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction” and thereafter to either 6 inquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, inquiry is mandatory or not.

#12. The words “and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction” were inserted by Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of complaints are filed against persons residing at far off in order to harass them. The note for the places amendment reads as follows: legislature, was essential as “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 proceeding against the accused.” The use of the expression “shall” prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word “shall” is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word “shall” in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression “shall” and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. harassment innocent persons 7

#13. In view of the decision of this Court in Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 435 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 1121 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 708] , this point need not detain us any further as in the said case, this Court has clearly held that the provision aforesaid is mandatory. It is apt to reproduce the following passage from the said judgment: (SCC p. 449, para 40) “40. The Magistrate had issued summons without meeting the mandatory requirement of Section 202 CrPC, though the appellants were outside his territorial jurisdiction. The provisions of Section 202 CrPC were amended vide the Amendment Act, 2005, making it [Ed.: The matter between the two asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] mandatory to postpone the issue of process [Ed.: The matter between the two asterisks has been emphasised in original as well.] where the accused resides in an area the Magistrate beyond concerned. The same was found necessary in order to protect from being harassed by unscrupulous persons and making it obligatory upon the Magistrate to enquire into the case himself, or to direct investigation to be made by a police officer, or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of finding out whether or not, there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused before issuing summons in such cases.” innocent persons jurisdiction of territorial (emphasis supplied)

#14. In view of our answer to the aforesaid question, the next question which falls for our determination is whether the learned Magistrate before issuing summons has held the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the Code. The word “inquiry” has been defined under Section 2(g) of the Code, the same reads as follows: “2. (g) „inquiry‟ means every inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or court;” It is evident from the aforesaid provision, every inquiry other than a trial conducted by the Magistrate or the court is an inquiry. No specific mode or manner of inquiry is provided under Section 202 of the Code. In the inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code, the witnesses are examined 8 whereas under Section 200 of the Code, examination of the complainant only is necessary with the option of examining the witnesses present, if any. This exercise by the Magistrate, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, is nothing but an inquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code.”

#17. In 2018(3) AICLR 625(Cal.), S.S. Binu vs. State of West Bengal (Cal.), the court held:- “100. To sum up, the reference made by the Learned Single Judge on the five issues are answered as follows:- of Section 19 of I. According to the settled principles of law, the amendment of sub-section (1) of Section 202 Cr.P.C. by virtue the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, is aimed to prevent innocent persons, who are residing outside territorial jurisdiction of the Learned Magistrate concerned, from harassment by unscrupulous persons complaints. The use of expression "shall", looking to the intention of the legislature to the context, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. the nature of enquiry as II. Keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved by (1) of Section way of amendment of sub-section indicated 202 Cr.P.C., in Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, the Magistrate concerned is to ward of false complaints against such persons who reside at far of places with a view to save them from unnecessary harassment and the Learned Magistrate concerned is under obligation to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by Criminal Court in the light of the settled principles of law holding an enquiry by way of examining complainant or direct an investigation made by a police officer as discussed hereinabove. the witnesses produced by III. When an order of issuing summon is issued by a learned Magistrate against an accused who is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction without conducting an enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the matter is 9 required to be remitted to the learned Magistrate concerned for passing fresh orders uninfluenced by the prima facie conclusion reached by the Appellate Court. IV. Keeping in mind the object underlined in Section 465 Cr.P.C. that if on any technical ground any party to the criminal proceedings is aggrieved he must raise the objection thereof at the earliest stage. In the event of failure on the part of an aggrieved party to raise objection at the earliest stage, he cannot be heard on that aspect after the whole trial is over or even at a later stage after his participation in the trial. V. In cases falling under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I.Act, the Magistrate is not mandatorily required to comply with the provisions of Section 202 (1) before issuing summons to an accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate concerned.”

#18. This Court also relies upon the case of Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings (Criminal appeal No. 875, 876, 877 of 2019). The Supreme Court on 9th May, 2019 observed and held in respect of Section 202 Cr.P.C. as follows (The relevant paragraph are reproduced herein):-

#26. Complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and enquiry contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and issuance of process:- Under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on presentation of the complaint by an individual, the Magistrate is required to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any. Thereafter, on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant on solemn statement of affirmation and the witnesses examined, the Magistrate has to get himself satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused and on such satisfaction, the Magistrate may direct issuance of process as contemplated under Section 204 Cr.P.C. The purpose of the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to determine whether a prima facie case is 10 made out and whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

#27. The scope of enquiry under this section is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under Section 204 Cr.P.C. or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 Cr.P.C. on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. At the stage of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is only concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in support of the averments in the complaint to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

#28. In National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another (2013) 2 SCC 488, the Supreme Court explained the scope of enquiry and held as under:- “9. The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 CrPC 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 Investigation under Section investigation 202 CrPC contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC ascertainment of allegations made in the complaint: limited falsehood of therefore, truth or is different or not. is, (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 out; 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.” 11

#29. In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others (2015) 12 SCC 420, the scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the satisfaction of the Magistrate for issuance of process has been considered and held as under:- 200 Cr.P.C, examine upon oath for dealing with “Complaints “2. Chapter XV Cr.P.C. deals with the further procedure Magistrate”. Under Section Magistrate, taking cognizance of an offence on a complaint, shall complainant and the witnesses, if any, present and the substance of such examination should be reduced to writing and the same shall be signed by the complainant, the witnesses and the Magistrate. Under Section Magistrate, if required, is empowered to either the case himself or direct an inquire investigation to be made by a competent person “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. If, after considering recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C and the result of the inquiry or investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C, Magistrate is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding, he should dismiss the complaint, after briefly recording the reasons for doing so. the statements 202 Cr.P.C,

#3. Chapter XVI Cr.P.C deals with “Commencement of Proceedings before Magistrate”. If, in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the Magistrate has to issue process under Section 204(1) Cr.P.C for attendance of the accused.”

#30. Reiterating the mandatory requirement of application of mind in the process of taking cognizance, in Bhushan Kumar and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another (2012) 5 SCC 424, it was held as under:- “11. In Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. (2008) 2 SCC 492 (SCC p. 499, para 19) the expression “cognizance” was explained by this Court as “it merely means „become aware of‟ 12 and when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it connotes „to take notice of judicially‟. It indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence said to have been committed by someone.” It is entirely a different thing from initiation of proceedings; rather it is the condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by the Magistrate or the Judge. Cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. Under Section 190 of the Code, it is the application of judicial mind to the averments in the complaint that constitutes cognizance. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of enquiry. If there is sufficient ground for proceeding then the Magistrate is empowered for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code.”

#31. Under the amended sub-section (1) to Section 202 Cr.P.C., it is obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond its jurisdiction, he shall enquire into the case himself or direct the investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused.

#32. By Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005, in Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the Principal Act with effect from 23.06.2006, in sub-section (1), the words “…and shall, in a case where accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises jurisdiction…” were inserted by Section 19 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2005. In the opinion of the legislature, such amendment was necessary as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places in order to harass them. The object of the amendment is to ensure that persons residing at far off places are not harassed by filing false complaints making it obligatory for the Magistrate to enquire. Notes on Clause 19 reads as under:- “False complaints are filed against persons residing at far off places simply to harass them. In 13 order to see that the 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 proceeding against the accused.”

#33. Considering the scope of amendment to Section 202 Cr.P.C., in Vijay Dhanuka and Others v. Najima Mamtaj and Others (2014) 14 SCC 638, it was held as under:- “shall” “12. ….The use of the expression “shall” prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word “shall” in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to prevent innocent from harassment by unscrupulous persons persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression “shall” and the background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.” Since the amendment is aimed to prevent persons residing outside the jurisdiction of the court from being harassed, it was reiterated that holding of enquiry is mandatory. The purpose or objective behind the amendment was also considered by this Court in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar and Another (2017) 3 SCC 528 and National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and Another (2013) 2 SCC 488. 14

#34. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood Ul Rehman, this Court held as under:- “22. ….the Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. The application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a proceeds under Sections 190/204 Cr.P.C., the High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one‟s dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” 35. In Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Supreme Court has held that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that the order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and law governing the issue. In para (28), it was held as under:- for proceeding against Magistrate 15 the complaint and “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” The principle that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and that as a matter of course, the criminal case against a person cannot be set into motion was reiterated in GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust v. India Infoline Limited (2013) 4 SCC 505.

#36. To be summoned/to appear before the Criminal Court as an accused is a serious matter affecting one‟s dignity and reputation in the society. In taking recourse to such a serious matter in summoning the accused in a case filed on a complaint otherwise than on a police report, there has to be application of mind as to whether the complaint constitute the allegations essential ingredients of the offence and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Surendra Prasad Sinha 1993 Supp (1) SCC 499, it was held that the issuance of process 16 should not be mechanical nor should be made an instrument of oppression or needless harassment.

#37. At the stage of issuance of process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record detailed orders. But based on the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same, the Magistrate is to be prima facie satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. In Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Another (2004) 4 SCC 432, it was held as under:- “10. ….The taking of cognizance of the offence is an area exclusively within the domain of a Magistrate. At this stage, the Magistrate has to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons.” the material produced by

#56. As held in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and Another AIR 1963 SC 1430 and in a series of judgments of the the object of an enquiry Supreme Court, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is for the Magistrate to scrutinize complainant to satisfy himself that the complaint evidence/material which forms sufficient ground for the Magistrate to proceed to issue process under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the Magistrate to elicit every fact that would establish the bona complainant. the complaint and fides of frivolous investigation 60……………………The Magistrate who under Section conducting 202 Cr.P.C. has full power in collecting the evidence and examining the matter. We are conscious that once the Magistrate is exercised his discretion, it is not for the Sessions Court or 17 enquiry the High Court to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate to examine the case on merits. The Magistrate may not embark upon detailed merits/demerits of the case. But the Magistrate is required to consider whether a prima case has been made out or not and apply the mind to the materials before satisfying himself that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused………………….. discussion imposes a

#61. The object of investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is “for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding”. The enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is to ascertain the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation calling for issuance of process to the person complained against or whether it is a baseless one on which no action need be taken. The serious responsibility on the Magistrate to decide if there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The issuance of process should not be mechanical nor should be made as an instrument of harassment to the accused. As discussed earlier, issuance of process to the accused calling upon them to appear in the criminal case is a serious matter and lack of material particulars and non-application of mind as to the materials cannot be brushed aside on the ground that procedural irregularity……………..” a

#19. Thus it is clear that Section 202 Cr.P.C. makes it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall inquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a Police Officer or by such other person as 18 he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

#20. In Sunil Todi and Ors. vs State of Gujarat and Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1446 of 2021, on 03.12.2021, the Supreme Court held:- “31. The second submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants turns upon Section 202 CrPC, which is extracted: “202. Postponement of issue of process.—(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, 1 [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 inquire 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: Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,— (a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session; or (b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200. (2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath: Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath. (3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer in charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.”

#32. …………………………………………..

#33. The provisions of Section 202 which mandate the Magistrate, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area of its jurisdiction, to postpone the issuance of process so as to enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation by police officer or by another 19 inquiry jurisdiction, instrument of harassment. person were introduced by Act 25 of 2005 with effect from 23 June 2006. The rationale for the amendment is based on the recognition by Parliament that false complaints are filed against persons residing at far off In Vijay places as an Dhanuka v. Najima Mamtaj20, this Court dwelt on the purpose of the amendment to Section 202, observing: “11. Section 202 of the Code, inter alia, contemplates postponement of the issue of the process „in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction‟ and thereafter to either inquire into the case by himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit. In the face of it, what needs our determination is as to whether in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his mandatory or not. 12. The words „and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction‟ were inserted by Section 19 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act (Central Act 25 of 2005) w.e.f. 23-6-2006. The aforesaid amendment, in the opinion of the legislature, was essential as false complaints are filed against persons residing at far-off places in order to harass them. The note for the amendment reads as follows: „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 proceeding against the accused.‟ The use of the expression “shall” prima facie makes the inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, by the Magistrate mandatory. The word “shall” is ordinarily mandatory but sometimes, taking into account the context or the intention, it can be held to be directory. The use of the word “shall” in all circumstances is not decisive. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principle, when we look to the intention of the legislature, we find that it is aimed to from harassment by prevent unscrupulous persons from false complaints. Hence, in our opinion, the use of the expression “shall” and the innocent persons 20 background and the purpose for which the amendment has been brought, we have no doubt in our mind that inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, is mandatory before summons are issued against the accused living beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.” together with

#34. This Court has held that the Magistrate is duty bound to apply his mind to the allegations in the complaint the statements which are recorded in the enquiry while determining whether there is a prima facie sufficient ground for proceeding. In Mehmood UI Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda21, this Court followed the dictum in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate22, and observed that setting the criminal law in motion against a person is a serious matter. Hence, there must be an application of mind by the Magistrate to whether the allegations in the complaint together with the statements recorded or the enquiry conducted constitute a violation of law. The Court observed: “20. The extensive reference to the case law would clearly show that cognizance of an offence on complaint is taken for the purpose of issuing process to the accused. Since it is a process of taking judicial notice of certain facts which constitute an offence, there has to be application of mind as to whether the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements thereon, would inquiry conducted recorded or constitute violation of law so as to call a person to appear before the criminal court. It is not a mechanical process or matter of course. As held by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate [Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400] to set in motion the process of criminal law against a person is a serious matter.” *** “22. The steps taken by the Magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC followed by Section 204 CrPC should reflect that the Magistrate has applied his mind to the facts and the statements and he is satisfied that there is ground for proceeding further in the matter by asking the person against whom the violation of law is alleged, to appear before the court. The satisfaction on the ground for proceeding would mean that the facts alleged in the complaint would constitute an offence, and when considered along with the statements recorded, would, prima facie, make the accused answerable before the court. No doubt, no formal order or a speaking order is 21 issuing process of mind required to be passed at that stage. The Code of Criminal Procedure requires speaking order to be passed under Section 203 CrPC when the complaint is dismissed and that too the reasons need to be stated only briefly. In other words, the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of each and every complaint filed before him and issue process as a matter of course. There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 CrPC, if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 CrPC, by appearance. The application is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 CrPC, the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court. To be called to appear before the criminal court as an accused is serious matter affecting one’s dignity, self-respect and image in society. Hence, the process of criminal court shall not be made a weapon of harassment.” These decisions were cited with approval in Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar23. After referring to the purpose underlying the amendment of Section 202, the Court observed: “25. … the amended provision casts an obligation on the Magistrate to apply his mind carefully and satisfy himself that the allegations in the complaint, when considered along with the statements recorded or the enquiry conducted thereon, would prima facie constitute the offence for which the complaint is filed. This requirement is emphasised by this Court in a recent judgment Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]…”

#35. While noting that the requirement of conducting an enquiry or directing an investigation before issuing process is not an empty formality, the Court relied on the decision in Vijay Dhanuka which had held that the exercise by the Magistrate for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused is nothing but an enquiry envisaged under Section 202 of the Code. 22

#36. In Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings24, the earlier decisions which have been referred to above were cited in the course of the judgment. The Court noted: “26. The scope of enquiry under this section is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine whether process should be issued or not under Section 204 CrPC or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 CrPC on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. At the stage of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC, the Magistrate is only concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence in support of the averments in the complaint to satisfy himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.” Hence, the Court held: “33. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The application of mind has to be indicated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Considering the duties on the part of the Magistrate for issuance of summons to the accused in a complaint case and that there must be sufficient indication as to the application of mind and observing that the Magistrate is not to act as a post office in taking cognizance of the complaint, in Mehmood Ul Rehman [Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, (2015) 12 SCC 420 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124]…” The above principles have been reiterated judgment in Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P25.” The Court considered the same later, in the light of a proceedings under Section 138/141C N.I. Act.

#21. In the present case only the complainant has been effectively examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C., who has stated about the facts/offences alleged in the present case. No documents have been perused and considered. Nor any witness examined. Thus in view of the judgment in Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors. (Supra), it is clear from the said order dated 08.04.2019 that 23 no inquiry as obligatory under Section 202 Cr.P.C. has been conducted.

#22. The Magistrate did not comply with the provision of Section 202 Cr.P.C., even though the petitioner reside (in Kerala) outside the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, in a different State.

#23. In the present case the Magistrate did not Conduct any inquiry into the case himself or direct an investigation as required under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before directing the issue of process and as such the order is not in accordance with law, and is thus an abuse of the process of law.

#24. The proceedings in this case no. CN-13 of 2018 is for offences punishable under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The nature of allegations in the petition of complaint needs an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. to ascertain the fact whether the complaint has any valid foundation for issuance of process (Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings (Supra)).

#25. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the nature of case pending between the parties, the non-compliance of Section 202 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate before issuance of process is prima facie an abuse of process of Court.

#26. CRR 3656 of 2019 is accordingly allowed.

#27. Accordingly in the interest of justice the order dated 08.04.2019 in Case No. CN-13 of 2018 under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of the Learned 13th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, is hereby set aside. 24

#28. The matter is remitted to the Court of the learned 13th Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, for considering the matter a fresh as per the relevant provision of law, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the judgment [Birla Corporation Ltd. vs. Adventz Investments and Holdings (Supra)] referred to in this order/judgment without being influenced by the order of this Court and also being guided by the judgment in S.S. Binu vs. State of West Bengal (Supra) and Vijay Dhanuka and Ors. vs Najima Mamtaj and Ors. (Supra).

#29. All connected applications, if any, stands disposed of.

#30. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

#31. Copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance.

#32. Urgent certified website copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)