A single judge bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprsing Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma decided on the meaning of the term ‘inquiry’ used under section 202 of the CrPC.
Facts
The present case came to the High Court in the form of an application under section 482 of the CrPC, which grants High Courts power to quash criminal proceedings. In the present case, criminal proceedings were instituted against the appellant by way of complaint under section 156(3) of CrPC for the offence of defamation under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, owing to the publication allegedly made by the present applicant in a newspaper. The trial court took cognizance of the complaint and issued a summon to the present applicant. It is against this issuance of summon that the present applicant approached the High Court.
Arguments made by the Applicant:
- The issuance of the summon was in violation of section 202 of the CrPC since the magistrate should have conducted an inquiry themselves or ordered an investigation by the police prior to issuance of summons since the present applicant was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
- No offence under section 500 IPC is made out against the Applicant.
Observations
In addressing the first argument by the applicant, the court went on to interpret the term ‘inquiry’ used in section 202 of the CrPC. The court found that the purpose of an inquiry under section 202 is to avoid the harassment of the opposite party who has been summoned. It is for this reason that the section “may either itself conduct an ‘inquiry’ or may direct the investigation to be made by the Police Officer or by any other person as he thinks fit.” The term ‘inquiry’ under section 202 CrPC cannot be given a meaning that is assigned to it in the service jurisprudence. The term “inquiry” herein would mean from the prospective that it has to be a satisfaction, which has to be recorded by the court necessitating the summoning of a person. Hence, the interpretation of the word “inquiry” as used herein, is not elaborate enough that it is a full-fledged drawn proceedings, which has to be resorted to by the court before issuance of process, that is why the legislature has used the word “may” conduct enquiry.
Addressing the second argument by the applicant that no offence under section 500 is made against him, the court held that ascertainment of allegations of defamation requires appreciation of evidence, which is a subject matter of trial to be considered by the trial court.
The charges could only be decided by the trial court after providing an adequate opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence. The interpretation given to the publication by the learned counsel for the applicant will not fall for consideration within the zone of exercise of powers by the courts under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., as deep and pervasive scrutiny to the evidence is not a subject matter, which is contemplated to be resorted to by the court while exercising its powers under Section C-482 of the Cr.P.C.
Decision
The court found that the applicant did not satisfy the court for want of the use of its discretionary powers under section 482 of the CrPC.
Case: Kushla Nand v Sunil Yadav
Citation: Criminal Misc. Application No. 1857 of 2022
Coram: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma
Date: 15.10.2022
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments