Punjab and Haryana HC: Magistrates Must Record Reasoning While Summoning Accused Residing Beyond Jurisdiction

Summoning an individual to face a criminal trial is a serious matter that cannot be performed in a mechanical or routine fashion without the explicit application of judicial mind. In a stern reminder to the trial courts, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set aside a summoning order for lack of reasoned satisfaction and failure to consider the mandatory inquiry report required when an accused resides outside the court's territorial limits.

Justice Manisha Batra, while presiding over the matter, emphasized that the procedural safeguards under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not mere formalities but are essential to prevent the harassment of persons living far from the seat of the court. The bench was hearing a petition filed by a father and son seeking the quashing of a complaint and a subsequent summoning order involving allegations of visa fraud and cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The Mandatory Nature of Inquiry Under Section 202

The Court observed that the amended provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure make it obligatory for a Magistrate to postpone the issuance of process if the accused is residing beyond their jurisdiction. In such cases, the Magistrate must either conduct an inquiry or direct a police investigation to determine if there is sufficient ground for proceeding. While the trial court in the present case had called for such a report, it failed to reflect upon or discuss the findings of the inquiry in the final summoning order.

Judicial Application of Mind and Speaking Orders

Highlighting the necessity of a 'speaking order', the High Court noted that the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 was silent on the material collected during the inquiry. Relying on the principles laid down in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others, the Court reiterated that the summoning order must provide a sufficient indication that the Magistrate has applied their mind to the facts and material on record.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Others’ case (supra) has categorically held that while issuing process, the Magistrate must indicate that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the material on record and there must be sufficient indication in the order that the Magistrate is satisfied that the allegations constitute an offence. It has been further held that summoning of an accused is a serious matter and cannot be done in a mechanical manner and that absence of such indication amounts to non- application of mind."

The Court has the following directions:

"The impugned order dated 18.01.2020 is hereby set aside. The petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration of the complaint in accordance with law. The learned Magistrate shall pass a fresh order after considering the inquiry conducted under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law."

Key Takeaways

Non-Mechanical Summoning: Magistrates cannot issue summons without documenting the specific reasons and satisfaction that a prima facie case exists against the accused.

Protection for Outstation Accused: The ruling reinforces that the inquiry under Section 202 for out-of-jurisdiction residents is a mandatory safeguard that must be meaningfully integrated into the court's decision-making process.

Jurisdictional Scrutiny: Trial courts must actively consider investigation reports that highlight jurisdictional issues, such as where the alleged transaction took place, before calling for a trial.

Remedies for Unreasoned Orders: Litigants can successfully challenge summoning orders that are 'non-speaking' or fail to evaluate the evidence collected during the preliminary inquiry phase.

Ratio

A summoning order issued against an accused residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate must explicitly reflect the consideration of the mandatory inquiry report under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; failure to discuss the material collected or provide reasons for judicial satisfaction constitutes a non-application of mind, rendering the order legally unsustainable.

Background:

The dispute originated from a complaint filed by one Hari Singh, alleging that the petitioners (a father and son) had induced him to pay Rs. 8 Lakhs under the pretext of facilitating his son's migration to Germany. It was alleged that the accused neither arranged the visa nor returned the money. While the petitioners argued they were residing abroad and that the alleged transactions occurred in Kapurthala rather than Pathankot, the Trial Court summoned them to face trial.

The petitioners challenged this summoning order before the High Court, primarily relying on M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate to argue that the order was passed mechanically. The High Court found that the Magistrate had ignored the mandatory report under Section 202, which specifically pointed out that the transactions did not occur within the local court's jurisdiction. Consequently, the High Court set aside the summoning order and directed a fresh consideration of the matter.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRM-M-14283-2021 (O&M)
Case Title: Surjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Ruchika Sabherwal, Senior DAG, Punjab; Mr. S. K. Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PNH) 179