Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Ct Case 4697/2023
Lakhan Sharma v Ramesh Chander
PS Rani Bagh
08.05.2026
Present : 	Ms Sonika Tyagi, Ld Counsel for the complainant through VC
Arguments were heard on the aspect of summoning earlier. At the
pre-summoning stage the complainant has examined only one witness i.e.
himself. Moreover, perusal of the memo of parties it appears that the accused
persons are residing in West Punjabi Bagh which is beyond the jurisdiction
of this court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed in Odi
Jerang v Nabajyoti Baruah & Ors SLP No. 2135/2022 decided on
22.08.2023 that :-
“There cannot be any doubt that in view of the use of word "shall" in
sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC and the object of amendment
made by the Act No. 25 of 2005, the provision will have to be held as
mandatory in a case where the accused is residing at a place outside the
jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. In fact, in paragraph No.12 of the
aforesaid decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, this Court held that in a case where one of the accused is a
resident of a place outside the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate,
following the procedure under sub- section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC is
mandatory. In the case of Vijay Dhanuka, this Court found that before
issuing summons, the learned Magistrate had examined the complainant and
two other witnesses on oath and therefore, on facts, this Court found that a
-- 1 of 2 --
substantial compliance with sub-section 1 of Section 202 of the CRPC was
made.”
Therefore, in terms of the mandate of section 202 CrPC, SHO PS Rani
Bagh is directed to conduct an investigation into the allegations levelled by
the complainant. Copy of complaint as well as the pre-summoning evidence
be sent along.
Put up for report u/s 202 CrPC on 28.07.2026
(APOORV BHARDWAJ)
JMFC-02, NORTH WEST DISTRICT
ROHINI COURTS DELHI/08.05.2026
-- 2 of 2 --