RAKESH CHANDRA RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these applications, preferred under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., since identical question of law is involved, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, same are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The common question of law which is involved in all these matters, namely, "whether an inquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. is followed or not and either are mandatory or directory in nature in view of the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Expeditious Trial of Cases under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act 1881, i.e., Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2020, (2021) 16 SCC 116."

(3.) Before giving answer to the question of law as above, in all these cases the proceedings under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act has been challenged only on the ground that before taking cognizance on the complaint and issuing process and summoning the accused, mandatory inquiry as stipulated under Sec. 202(1) Cr.P.C., has not been followed which in fact mandates postpone of issuance of process for the accused resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate.