ODI JERANG Vs. NABAJYOTI BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the complainant in a complaint filed under Sec. 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CRPC") alleging offences punishable under Ss. 120-B, 406, 420 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate on 2/5/2017 issued summons after examining the petitioner under Sec. 200 of CRPC. Thereafter, the case made progress and evidence of 7 witnesses was recorded before framing of charge. At that stage, the respondents-accused raised an objection on the ground that though some of the accused were residing at a place beyond the area covered by the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate, the mandatory requirement of Sec. 202(1) of CRPC was not followed. On that ground, the order issuing summons was challenged by the respondents by invoking Sec. 482 of the CRPC before the High Court. The High Court relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Abhijit Pawar v. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar & Anr., (2017) 3 SCC 538 As the mandatory requirement of sub-sec. 1 of Sec. 202 of the CRPC was not followed, the High Court proceeded to quash the order issuing summons and remanded the complaint to the learned Magistrate to deal with the same from the stage of Sec. 202 of the CRPC.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant is that it was too late in the day that the objection regarding non-compliance with subsection 1 of Sec. 202 of the CRPC was raised and that also after 7 witnesses were examined by the petitioner. Her contention is that a substantial compliance with sub-sec. 1 of Sec. 202 of the CRPC has been made by examining the petitioner before issuing summons. She has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. v. Najima Mamtaj, (2014) 14 SCC 638