Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Bansilal S. Kabra v. Global Trade Finance Limited & Anr., has held that when a Magistrate is conducting a mandatory inquiry under the provisions of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) before summoning an accused living beyond jurisdiction, the Magistrate shouldn't solely rely on the allegations in the private complaint.

What was the Background of Bansilal S. Kabra v. Global Trade Finance Limited & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, and Justices Bharati Dangre & Arif Doctor were dealing with the issue that whether an inquiry under Section 202(1) of the CrPC is mandatory before summoning an accused residing outside the court's jurisdiction, especially when the accused is residing in another city or state.
• The Court passed the order while disposing of an old reference as divergent views were taken by single judges of the Bombay High Court in 2009 & 2010.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench comprising of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay, and Justices Bharati Dangre & Arif Doctor observed that when a Magistrate is conducting a mandatory inquiry under Section 202(1) of CrPC before summoning an accused who lives outside the court's jurisdiction, the Magistrate shouldn't solely rely on the allegations in the private complaint as it can be used as an instrument of vendetta.
• It was held that the Magistrate should undertake a deeper examination after recording the complainant or witness's statement on oath, and documentary evidence to ascertain if there are sufficient grounds to issue process against the accused.
• The Court further held that the vindication of majesty of justice and maintenance of law and order in the Society, being the primary object of criminal justice, would not bring within its sweep a personal vengeance.

What is Section 202 of CrPC?

About:

• This Section deals with the examination of complainant. It states that—

A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Magistrate.

Provided that, when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses—

(a) If a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint; or

(b) If the Magistrate makes the case for inquiry or trial to another Magistrate under section 192.

Provided further that if the Magistrate makes over the case to another Magistrate under section 192 after examining the complainant and the witnesses, the latter Magistrate need not re-examine them.

Objectives:

• To enable the Magistrate to carefully scrutinize the allegations made in the complaint with a view to prevent a person named therein, as accused, from being called upon to face unnecessary, frivolous or meritless complaint.
• To find out whether there is any material in existence to support the allegations in the complaint.

Case Law:

• In Mohinder Singh v. Gulwant Singh (1992) , the Supreme Court held that the scope of enquiry under Section 202 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 issue or not under Section 204 of the Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of the Code 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.