H D F C Vs. JALEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is the import and consequence of the amendment to S.202 CrPC by Act 25 of 2005 w.e.f. 23/06/06 by which 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 introduced? Is the stipulation couched in above language directory or mandatory? Does that stipulation apply at all to prosecutions under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? If the sworn statement of all necessary witnesses cited by the complainant is recorded under S.200 CrPC and the materials are sufficient to induce the requisite satisfaction in the mind of the learned Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, should the learned Magistrate still proceed to the stage of S.202 CrPC and conduct a further enquiry? What would be the content and scope of such an extended enquiry in such circumstances? When does the enquiry under S.200 CrPC end and the enquiry under S.202 CrPC commence? Is the boundary line between the enquiry under S.200 CrPC and 202 CrPC so firm, definite, stable and specific? These questions arise for consideration in these cases.

(2.) THESE questions have been raised in several similar matters. Counsel were requested to advance detailed arguments. All counsel who wanted to be heard on the question were given opportunity to advance their arguments. Advocate D. Kishore was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae also. By this common order, I propose to dispose of only Crl MC No. 292 of 2008 and Crl MC No. 2247 of 2008.

(3.) CRL MC No. 2247 of 2008 is filed by the complainant in a prosecution under S.138 of the NI Act. The grievance of the complainant is that though all materials have been placed before the learned Magistrate to induce the requisite satisfaction under S.203/204 CrPC, unnecessarily there has been a direction to proceed with the enquiry under S.202 CrPC. Loan documents relating to the transaction in question were directed to be produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a ritualistic further enquiry under S.202 CrPC is not necessary or warranted at all notwithstanding the amendment to S.202 CrPC. He challenges the impugned order which reads as follows: