Mohd. Rafat Khan v. Teckinfo Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
In the High Court of Delhi
Crl. Misc. Case 3444/2013
Before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Decided on September 27, 2022

Relevancy of the case: Scope of inquiry by a Magistrate under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 40, 41)
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 34, 120B, 379, 355, 406, 420, 499, 500, 506)
• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 200, 202, 203, 204, 482)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The first respondent appointed the petitioner as sales head for a monthly salary. However, the petitioner did not receive the promised monthly salary.
• Further, the fourth respondent directed the second respondent to clear the petitioner’s dues. However, the second respondent allegedly assaulted the petitioner in the office.
• The company terminated the petitioner’s service without any termination letter. Therefore, he gave the respondents a legal notice to clear the dues.
• The petitioner approached the police to file a criminal complaint after non-compliance with the legal notice. The Magistrate did not find any substance and dismissed the complaint by an order. The revisional court upheld the above-said order.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The first respondent’s counsel submitted that under Section 482, this court has limited power to see whether the court below has committed any jurisdictional error. The counsel also argued that no fault could be found since the trial court did not find any substantial material.

Opinion of the Bench

• The scope of inquiry under Section 202 is limited to finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegation made in the complaint.
• The order to issue summons has serious consequences. Hence, a judge should pass such an order only after applying proper mind and law to the facts of the case.
• The inquiry under Section 203 does not require critically examining the facts. Therefore, the Magistrate has erred while framing charges against the second respondent.

Final Decision

• The bench directed the Magistrate to reconsider the matter while framing charges against the second respondent, thereby partly allowing the petition.