S. 202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory In Complaint Filed By Public Servant: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has ruled that the magistrate need not conduct a statutory inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. (now Section 225 of the BNSS) before issuing a summons to an accused residing beyond the magistrate's territorial jurisdiction based on a complaint filed by a public servant in discharge of its official duty.

A Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti set aside the decision of the Kerala High Court, which had quashed the Magistrate's summoning order on the ground that no inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted before issuing summons to the respondent-accused residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction.

As per Section 202(1) of Cr.P.C., upon taking cognizance based on a private complaint, it is mandatory for the magistrate to conduct an inquiry before issuing a summons to the accused, who is residing outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, an inquiry, before issuing a summons to an accused residing outside the magistrate's territorial jurisdiction, would not be mandatory when the complaint is filed by a public servant, the Court said.

The Case

The case originated from a complaint filed by a Drugs Inspector in Kerala against Respondent-M/s Panacea Biotec Ltd. and others for alleged misbranding of a pentavalent vaccine under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940. The accused companies challenged the summoning order before the High Court, arguing that since they were based outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Thrissur, the magistrate was legally bound to conduct an inquiry under Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.

The respondents contended that the provision was a sine qua non following the 2005 amendment, which made such an inquiry mandatory in cases where the accused resides beyond the magistrate's jurisdiction. They emphasized that the amendment did not carve out any explicit exception for public servants.

The State of Kerala, however, countered that the procedure under Section 202 cannot be treated as mandatory for a public servant, arguing they "stand on a different pedestal" and relying on the precedent set in Cheminova India Limited v. State of Punjab (2021) 8 SCC 818.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to quash the summoning order, the State moved to the Supreme Court.

Decision

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Amanullah harmoniously construed Section 202 with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., stating that when proviso to Section 200 doesn't mandate the Magistrate to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a public servant is acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty or a Court has made the complaint, then it would be unreasonable to make an inquiry based on a complaint filed by the public servant before issuing summons to the accused, residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the magistrate.

The Court placed significant reliance on its earlier ruling in Cheminova India Limited v State of Punjab., observing that the legislature has placed a public servant on a “different pedestal.” The Court noted that although the purpose of an inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC is to safeguard innocent persons from unnecessary harassment, the proviso to Section 200 of the CrPC exempts complaints filed by public servants from such preliminary scrutiny. Consequently, insisting on a separate inquiry before issuing a summons to an accused residing outside the Magistrate's territorial jurisdiction would render the statutory scheme meaningless in such cases.

“The present case emanates from a complaint by an officer, made in writing. In terms of Section 200 of the Code, the Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a public servant is acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duty or a Court has made the complaint. Here, an official complaint was made on authorisation by the State Government. In this factual setting, Section 202 of the Code would necessarily have to be construed harmoniously with Section 200 of the Code when considering postponement of the issue of process.”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the summoning order passed by the magistrate was upheld.

Also From Judgment: S.469 CrPC | Limitation Period Starts From Date When Offender's Identity Is Known & Not From Receipt Of Complaint : Supreme Court

Cause Title: THE STATE OF KERALA & ANR. v. M/s. PANACEA BIOTEC LTD. & ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 206

Click here to download judgment