Summoning an Accused Is a Serious Judicial Act; Magistrate Must Consider Mandatory Section 202 CrPC Inquiry Before Issuing Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Surjit Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and Another
Date of Judgment: 20 July 2026
Citation: CRM-M-14283-2021
Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
Held: Reaffirming the mandatory safeguards embodied in Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 CrPC is not an empty formality but a mandatory statutory safeguard intended to prevent frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment. Once such an inquiry is conducted, the Magistrate is under a corresponding obligation to consider the material collected during the inquiry before deciding whether sufficient grounds exist for issuance of process.
The Court emphasised that summoning an accused is a serious judicial act carrying significant civil and criminal consequences and cannot be undertaken mechanically. The summoning order must disclose conscious application of judicial mind to the complaint, the preliminary evidence, as well as the material collected during the inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. A cryptic or non-speaking order which ignores the outcome of the mandatory inquiry reflects non-application of mind and is liable to be set aside.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and the settled principle that criminal law cannot be set in motion casually, the Court held that compliance with Section 202 CrPC is substantive and not merely procedural. Where the Magistrate fails to indicate consideration of the inquiry report while issuing summons, the very foundation of the order stands vitiated.
Summary: The petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a private criminal complaint under Sections 420 and 34 IPC and the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathankot. The complaint alleged that the petitioners had induced the complainant to part with ₹8 lakhs on the false representation that they would facilitate the migration of the complainant’s son to Germany, but neither arranged the promised visa nor refunded the amount.
The petitioners contended that they were residing abroad and, therefore, the Magistrate had rightly directed an inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before issuing process. The inquiry report submitted by the investigating officer reportedly indicated that the alleged transaction had taken place at Kapurthala and not at Pathankot. However, despite the inquiry having been conducted pursuant to the statutory mandate, the Magistrate’s summoning order made no reference whatsoever to the inquiry report or the material collected during such investigation. It was argued that the order had been passed mechanically without recording satisfaction regarding the material emerging from the inquiry.
Examining the statutory scheme of Section 202 CrPC, the High Court observed that after the 2005 amendment, it became obligatory for a Magistrate to either conduct an inquiry himself or direct an investigation where the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court before issuing summons. The legislative intent behind the amendment is to provide an additional safeguard against indiscriminate issuance of criminal process and to ensure that persons residing outside the Court’s jurisdiction are not summoned without adequate judicial scrutiny.
The Court further referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda, which holds that a Magistrate must demonstrate application of mind to the complaint, the preliminary evidence and the outcome of the inquiry before issuing process. The High Court observed that although the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC had admittedly been conducted in the present case, the impugned order remained completely silent regarding the material collected during that inquiry. The order neither discussed the inquiry report nor disclosed any satisfaction that the statutory requirement had been meaningfully complied with.
Holding that a summoning order cannot be sustained merely because an inquiry was formally conducted, the Court ruled that the Magistrate must expressly evaluate the inquiry material before deciding whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding against the accused. Failure to do so renders the summoning order a non-speaking order suffering from patent non-application of judicial mind, thereby warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Decision: Allowing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the summoning order dated 18.01.2020 on the ground that it had been passed without due application of mind and without considering the material collected during the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC. The matter was remanded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathankot, with a direction to reconsider the complaint afresh after duly examining the inquiry report and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law before proceeding further.