Criminal Procedure Code

National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz

(2013) 2 SCC 488

Facts

National Bank of Oman filed a complaint alleging criminal wrongdoing in a financial transaction.
The accused resided outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate who received the complaint.
The Magistrate examined the complaint and issued process.
No meaningful inquiry or investigation under Section 202 CrPC was conducted before summons.
The accused challenged the order.
The controversy centred on the 2005 amendment to Section 202, which inserted a mandatory safeguard for persons residing beyond the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.

Whether inquiry or investigation under Section 202 is mandatory where the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s territorial jurisdiction.
What level of examination is required before issuing process.

After the 2005 amendment, where the accused resides beyond the Magistrate’s jurisdiction, the Magistrate shallpostpone issuance of process.
The Magistrate must:
inquire into the case personally; or
direct investigation by police or another suitable person.
The purpose is to prevent:
false complaints;
distant harassment;
and summons issued without territorial verification.
The inquiry need not become a full trial.
It must be sufficient to determine whether:
the allegations have prima facie support;
the accused is correctly identified;
and process is justified.
Mere repetition of the complainant’s statement without applying mind may not satisfy the requirement.
BNSS Section 225 retains the post-cognizance inquiry framework.

The accused would have been required to travel from outside the jurisdiction and submit to criminal proceedings.
Parliament deliberately introduced additional screening before imposing that burden.
The word “shall” indicated that the safeguard was mandatory.
The Magistrate could not treat residence outside jurisdiction as irrelevant.
The Court clarified that the inquiry may vary according to the case.
In a documentary financial complaint, it may include examination of:
transaction records;
account material;
correspondence;
and witness statements.
The court need not decide guilt or finally test every defence.
It must nevertheless record that the special jurisdictional safeguard was considered.
The existing summoning order did not demonstrate such an exercise.
Setting aside the summons did not dismiss the complaint.
The proper course was to return the matter to the Magistrate to:
conduct the statutory inquiry;
assess prima facie material;
and then decide whether process should issue.
This approach protected the accused without denying the complainant a lawful prosecution.

The Supreme Court held that compliance with Section 202 is mandatory where the accused resides outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
The summoning order was set aside and the matter remitted for proper inquiry.
The judgment gives practical effect to the statutory protection against distant and unverified criminal complaints.