AROON PURIE Vs. JAYAKUMAR HIREMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(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 Sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and hence the proceedings under Sec. 482 Crimial 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 202(1) Crimial 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 Sec. 202(1) Crimial P.C. had not been followed, the learned trial Court would not have the jurisdiction to issue process/summons as has been done.