2016 ALL SCR (Cri) 1754
SUPREME COURT
RANJAN GOGOI AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.
Aroon Purie Vs. Jayakumar Hiremath
Criminal Appeal No.843 of 2016,Criminal Appeal No.847 of 2016
5th September, 2016.
Petitioner Counsel: Mr. AMARENDRA SHARAN, Sr. Adv., Mr. SAJAD SULTAN, Mr. SANCHIT GURU, Mr. JAMNESH KUMAR, Mr. HIMANSHU SHEKHAR
Respondent Counsel: Mr. GAURAV MITRA, Mr. RAJNEESH CHOPRA, Mr. PRATIK MALIK, Ms. LIZ MATHEW, Mr. PHILIPH, Ms. RASHMITA, Mr. ANANTHA NARAYANA M.G.
(A) Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.482, 202(1) - Quashing of process - Dismissal of petition - On ground that order summoning accused is revisable u/S.397 Cr.P.C. - Challenge - Held, power u/S.482 Cr.P.C. is always available to challenge an order issuing process or summons - Impugned order, quashed. (2013) 15 SCC 624 Ref. to. (Para 2)
(B) Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.202(1), 482 - Issuance of process - Legality - Accused residing beyond jurisdiction of trial court - Magistrate did not hold inquiry either by himself or direct investigation by police prior to issuance of process - Mandatory provision of S.202(1) Cr.P.C., not followed - Process issued without jurisdiction, hence quashed. (Para 3)
Cases Cited:
Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh, (2013) 15 SCC 624 [Para 2]
JUDGMENT
2. The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed the petitions for quashing of the criminal proceedings filed by the appellants on the ground that this Court in Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir Singh [(2013) 15 SCC 624] has laid down the law that an order summoning the accused is revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and hence the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be maintainable. We disagree with the view of the High Court. On a plain reading of the judgment of this Court in Urmila Devi vs. Yudhvir Singh (supra) no such proposition of law has been laid down. In fact, in paragraph 21.3 this Court has held to the contrary i.e. the power under Section 482 would always be available to challenge an order issuing process or summons.
3. The above apart, from the materials on record it appears that the accused appellants in the present appeals have and maintain residence beyond the local jurisdiction of the learned trial Court. Under the provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. it was, therefore, mandatory for the learned Magistrate to hold an inquiry either by himself or direct an investigation by the Police prior to the issuance of process. Admittedly, the same had not been done. If the aforesaid mandatory provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C. had not been followed, the learned trial Court would not have the jurisdiction to issue process/summons as has been done.
4. We have also taken note of the complaint petition and the averments made therein and the necessary ingredients to attract the offence(s) alleged which is under Section 295A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
5. On such consideration, we interfere with the orders of the High Court; allow the appeals and set aside and quash the proceedings qua the appellants as a whole including the summoning order dated 17th January, 2015.