Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

**** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 25
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 26
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 27
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 28
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 29
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 30
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 31
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 32
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 33
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 34
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '1093898',
			'acts' => null,
			'appealno' => null,
			'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
			'authreffered' => null,
			'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
			'casenote' => '',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => null,
			'citingcases' => null,
			'counselplain' => null,
			'counseldef' => null,
			'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
			'deposition' => null,
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => null,
			'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => null,
			'pubs' => null,
			'ratiodecidendi' => null,
			'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
			'sub' => null,
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '1093898',
		(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Present Mr R S Rai Sr Advocate with Vs State of Haryana and Others - Citation 1093898 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '1093898',
		'acts' => null,
		'appealno' => null,
		'appellant' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with',
		'authreffered' => null,
		'casename' => 'Present: Mr.R.S.Rai Sr. Advocate with Vs. State of Haryana and Others',
		'casenote' => '',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => null,
		'citingcases' => null,
		'counselplain' => null,
		'counseldef' => null,
		'court' => 'Punjab and Haryana',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2013-10-07',
		'deposition' => null,
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => null,
		'judgement' => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.</p><p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.</p><p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.</p><p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.</p><p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.</p><p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.</p><p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.</p><p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.</p><p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.</p><p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.</p><p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.</p><p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.</p><p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.</p><p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.</p><p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.</p><p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.</p><p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."</p><p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.</p><p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."</p><p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.</p><p> 11.</p><p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.</p><p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.</p><p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."</p><p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.</p><p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.</p><p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.</p><p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.</p><p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.</p><p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.</p><p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.</p><p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.</p><p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => null,
		'pubs' => null,
		'ratiodecidendi' => null,
		'respondent' => 'State of Haryana and Others',
		'sub' => null,
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '1093898',
	(int) 1 => 'present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1093898/present-mr-r-s-rai-sr-advocate-vs-state-haryana'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 07.10.2013 Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) Sanjeet Kumar Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Randhir Singh Malik ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) Sewa Ram ......Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M No.8679 of 2012.',
	(int) 1 => '<p> Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anhul Singh, Advocate, for petitioner in CRM-M No.25571 of 2012.',
	(int) 2 => '<p> Mr.Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for petitioner in CRM-M14205of 2013 Mr.Satyavir Singh Yadav, Addl.A.G.Haryana.',
	(int) 3 => '<p> Mr.D.K.Khanna, Advocate forrespondent No.2.',
	(int) 4 => '<p> **** Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) SABINA, J.',
	(int) 5 => '<p> Vide this judgment, above mentioned three petitions would be disposed of as the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 8.7.2010 and 12.1.2012.',
	(int) 6 => '<p> Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners were residents of Chandigarh/ Panchkula.',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Hence, the Court at Gurgaon erred in summoning the petitioners without holding an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.for short).Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, has opposed the petitions.',
	(int) 8 => '<p> The Apex Court in National Bank of Oman versus Barakara Abdul Aziz and another (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases(Crl) 731 has held as under:- "7.The High Court took the view that prima facie the bare allegation of cheating did not make out a case against the accused for issuance of process under Sections 418 or 420 IPC.',
	(int) 9 => '<p> Further, it was held that the CJ.did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 202 Cr.P.C.The High Court held that the Magistrate was obliged to postpone the process against the accused and either enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other officer as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding in a case where the Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) accused is residing beyond the area in which the Magistrate exercises his jurisdiction.',
	(int) 10 => '<p> The High Court noticed that the accused is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, Karnataka and hence, the CJ.should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 202 CrPC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p> The High Court, therefore, set aside the order dated 25-2- 2-11 issuing the process under Sections 418 and 420 IPC by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 12 => '<p> Aggrieved by the said order the Bank has come up with this special leave petition.',
	(int) 13 => '<p> 8.We find no error in the view taken by the High Court that the CJM, Ahmednagar had not carried out any enquiry or ordered investigation as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.PC before issuing the process, considering the fact that the respondent is a resident of District Dakshin Kannada, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CJ.Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 14 => '<p> It was,therefore, incumbent upon him to carry out an enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under Section 202 CrPC before issuing the process.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> 9.The duty of a Magistrate receiving a complaint is set out in Section 202 Cr.PC and there is an obligation on the Magistrate to find out if there is any matter which calls for investigation by a criminal court.',
	(int) 16 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under this section is restricted only to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) order to determine whether process has to be issued or not.',
	(int) 17 => '<p> Investigation under Section 202 Cr.PC is different from the investigation contemplated in Section 156 as it is only for holding the Magistrate to decide whether or not there is sufficient ground for him to proceed further.',
	(int) 18 => '<p> The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is, therefore, limited to the ascertainment of truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint: i)on the materials placed by the complainant before the court; ii) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has been made out; and iii)for deciding the question purely from the point of view of the complainant without at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have.',
	(int) 19 => '<p> 10.Section 202 CrPC was amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 and the following words were inserted; "and shall, in a case where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which he exercises his jurisdiction."',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes on clauses for the above mentioned amendment read as follows: "False complaints are filed against persons residing at far Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) off places simply to harass them.',
	(int) 21 => '<p> In order to see that innocent persons are not harassed by unscrupulous persons, this clause seeks to amend sub-section (1) of Section 202 to make it obligatory upon the Magistrate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction he shall enquire into the case himself or direct investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused."',
	(int) 22 => '<p>The amendment has come into force w.e.f.23.06.2006 vide Notification No.S.O.923(E) dated 21.06.2006.',
	(int) 23 => '<p> 11.',
	(int) 24 => '<p> We are of the view that the High Court has correctly held that the above mentioned amendment was not noticed by the CJM, Ahmednagar.',
	(int) 25 => '<p> The CJ.had failed to carry out any enquiry or order investigation as contemplated under the amended Section 202 Cr.PC.',
	(int) 26 => '<p> Since it is an admitted fact that the accused is residing outside the jurisdiction of the CJM, Ahmednagar, we find no error in the view taken by the High Court."',
	(int) 27 => '<p>In the present case, the case of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik is that he was an employee of M/s Hartron Communications Limited on 20.9.1990, which is a public undertaking.',
	(int) 28 => '<p> Thus, the said petitioner was eligible to apply for allotment of a flat.',
	(int) 29 => '<p> So far as Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-8679 of 2012 (O&M) 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-25571 of 2012 (O&M) Crl.Misc.No.M-14205 of 2013 (O&M) petitioner Randhir Singh Malik is concerned, he is the father of petitioner Sanjeet Kumar Malik and was the president of the society at the relevant time.',
	(int) 30 => '<p> So far as petitioner Sewa Ram is concerned, his counsel has submitted that the said petitioner was a paid secretary of the society and had issued the allotment orders as per the directions of the Managing Committee.',
	(int) 31 => '<p> In case the Magistrate had held an enquiry as envisaged under Section 202 Cr.P.C., it would have enabled the Magistrate to pass the order at the time of summoning of the accused in a more just and fair manner.',
	(int) 32 => '<p> Accordingly, these petitions are partly allowed.',
	(int) 33 => '<p> Impugned summoning order dated 8.7.2010 and order dated 12.1.2012 passed by the Court of revision are set aside.',
	(int) 34 => '<p> The trial Court is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.',
	(int) 35 => '<p> (SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 36
$i = (int) 35
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(SABINA) JUDGE October 07, 2013 anita Devi Anita 2013.10.08 16:00 I am approving this document Chandigarh