Postponement of issue of process
Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with postponement of issue of process. Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Any Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint of an offence of which he is authorised to take cognizance or which has been made over to him under section 192, may, if he thinks fit, postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding:
Provided that no such direction for investigation shall be made,--
(a) where it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session ; or
(b) where the complaint has not been made by a Court, unless the complainant and the witnesses present (if any) have been examined on oath under section 200.
(2) In an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, take evidence of witnesses on oath :
Provided that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, he shall call upon the complainant to produce all his witnesses and examine them on oath.
(3) If an investigation under sub-section (1) is made by a person not being a police officer, he shall have for that investigation all the powers conferred by this Code on an officer-in- charge of a police station except the power to arrest without warrant.
Section 202, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 225 Postponement of issue of process Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-25.pdf 2015-03-31 DATE VERIFIED (not same-date ROP order-26). Crl A 1347-1348/2010. Kurian Joseph/A.K. Goel. Magistrate must apply mind before process under 190/204; a s.202 inquiry is part of the complaint-to-process path. Pepsi Foods followed; a mechanical bailable-warrant set aside. Do not remap crpc 190 (already filled).
On this section: s.202 postponement/inquiry is the statutory check before process. A Magistrate must apply mind; a mechanical bailable-warrant on a complaint is set aside (Mehmood Ul Rehman, following Pepsi Foods).
-
Sunil Mehta vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Evidence recorded during preliminary inquiry under Section 202 CrPC before the accused appears in court cannot be used to frame charges against the accused under Section 246 CrPC without fresh evidence being produced and recorded under Section 244 CrPC in the presence and with the opportunity of cross-examination by the accused. The accused has a fundamental right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses before charges are framed, as this right is essential for the accused to demonstrate that allegations are groundless and no case exists warranting framing of charges. The scheme and procedure of Chapter XV (dealing with complaints and preliminary inquiry) is distinct from Chapter XIX Part B (dealing with trial of warrant cases on private complaint), and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage cannot substitute for evidence properly recorded under Section 244 in the presence of the accused.
On this section: Power to postpone issue of process and conduct inquiry or direct police investigation; power to take evidence of witnesses on oath during inquiry
-
Ranvir Singh vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A second complaint on the same cause of action and between the same parties is legally maintainable even after dismissal of an earlier complaint, provided the earlier complaint was dismissed not on merits following inquiry under Section 202-203 CrPC, but on account of procedural default by the complainant such as failure to pay process fees. The bar to entertaining a second complaint applies only when the first complaint has been dismissed on merits after a full inquiry by the Magistrate, except in the exceptional circumstances enumerated in Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar (AIR 1962 SC 876), namely: (i) where the previous order was passed on an incomplete record; (ii) on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint; (iii) where it was manifestly absurd, unjust, fallacious or false; or (iv) where new facts which could not with reasonable diligence have been brought on record in the previous proceeding have been adduced. When a complaint is dismissed merely for procedural default and not on merits, a fresh complaint on the same facts is permissible as it is a different action from attempting to recall or review the earlier order of dismissal, which is prohibited under Section 362 CrPC.
On this section: Inquiry by Magistrate before issuing process on complaint; contrasted with Section 203 to determine nature of bar on second complaint
-
Rajinder Arora vs Union of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure inquiry is mandatory before issuance of process against accused residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate. However, in complaints under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, the evidence of the complainant may be given by affidavit, and evidence of witnesses may also be permitted on affidavit. The Magistrate has discretion to examine documents for satisfaction as to sufficiency of grounds for proceeding, and is not compelled to examine all witnesses personally. Section 145 NI Act serves as an exception to Section 202(2) CrPC in relation to examination of witnesses on oath, being an exception designed to speed up trials in Section 138 complaints.
On this section: Mandate to conduct inquiry before issuance of process when accused resides outside jurisdiction; debate on whether this requirement is mandatory or directory; interplay with Section 145 NI Act
-
Devendra Kishanlal Dagalia vs Dwarkesh Diamonds PVT LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a Magistrate has examined a complaint, taken cognizance of an offence, and issued summons under Section 204 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate cannot thereafter recall or review that order by invoking Section 201 Cr.P.C. (which applies only to cases where the Magistrate is initially not competent to take cognizance). Relief post-issuance of summons must be sought before the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. Additionally, a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act is maintainable at any court having territorial jurisdiction over any location where any one of the five essential components of the offence (drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment within 15 days) occurred, and the complainant has discretion to choose such a court.
On this section: Contemplates postponement of process on receipt of complaint in specified circumstances. Discussed in context of Magistrate's discretion before proceeding.
-
Udai Shankar Awasthi vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a criminal complaint is filed many years after an alleged instantaneous offence (not a continuing offence), beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 468 CrPC, without plausible explanation for delay, by a litigant who has exhausted all civil and arbitral remedies and lost therein, and where earlier complaints on substantially identical facts have been dismissed on merits, and where material facts such as earlier dismissals have been suppressed, the complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, regardless of the gravity of the alleged offence or the availability in law to prosecute crimes after long periods. The court must protect innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous litigants who seek to weaponize criminal proceedings as a tool for vengeance after civil defeat.
On this section: As amended in 2005, mandates postponement of issue of process where accused resides outside territorial jurisdiction, requiring magistrate to hold preliminary inquiry or direct police investigation. Court held that magistrate erred by not complying with this mandatory requirement.
-
State of Maharashtra vs Ashok
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Special Court under MCOCA may take cognizance of an offence on a private complaint, but such power is controlled by and must be exercised in compliance with Section 23(2) of MCOCA, which mandates that no Special Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act without the previous sanction of a Police Officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police. Section 9(1) and Section 23(2) of MCOCA must be read harmoniously and together, not in isolation. The provisions of Section 25 of MCOCA, which give overriding effect to MCOCA over the Criminal Procedure Code, preclude the Special Judge from invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to conduct independent inquiry on a private complaint and take cognizance without compliance with Section 23. Private complaints must follow the procedure outlined in Section 23 of MCOCA: forward to officer under Section 23(1)(a) for inquiry by police officer under Section 23(1)(b), and only thereafter take cognizance upon obtaining sanction under Section 23(2).
On this section: Magistrate's power to examine witnesses on complaint. Referenced in context of actions taken by MCOCA Special Judge on private complaint.
-
Shashidhar vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An order directing further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be passed in the absence of valid sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. However, sanction is not required if, at the time of taking cognizance, the public servant is not holding the same post which is alleged to have been misused or abused. The relevant date for determining whether sanction is required is the date on which cognizance is taken, not the date on which the alleged misconduct occurred. If the public servant has been transferred from the office allegedly misused and is holding a different office (whether by promotion or otherwise), the protection under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not apply, and no sanction is necessary.
On this section: Power to postpone issue of process and to conduct inquiry. Court examined the judicial mind application at this stage.
-
Balveer Singh vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a Magistrate actively considers an application for cognizance, applies independent mind, and deliberately refuses cognizance of certain offences before committing case to Sessions Court, the Sessions Court can still take cognizance of those offences on a fresh application by the complainant, because: (1) Sessions Court is acting as court of original jurisdiction under Section 193 and cognizance taken by it is first cognizance for jurisdictional purposes; (2) The Magistrate's refusal order does not attain absolute finality that bars Sessions Court's revisional jurisdiction; (3) No valuable right accrues from such refusal order as it is not final adjudication on merits; and (4) Provided proper opportunity of hearing is given to the accused before Sessions Court takes such cognizance, the action is constitutionally valid. The distinction between Magistrate playing 'active role' (taking/refusing cognizance after hearing) versus 'passive role' (merely forwarding for commitment) becomes relevant when Magistrate has already actively decided against cognizance, but does not create an absolute bar.
On this section: Procedure for taking cognizance on complaint - Magistrate can resort to this before taking cognizance.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving Section 156(3) CrPC applications, particularly in commercial disputes and debt recovery matters where statutory alternative remedies exist under special statutes like SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks Act, a Magistrate must exercise strict judicial application of mind before ordering investigation. The Magistrate must: (1) Consider allegations in their entirety and nature, (2) Evaluate whether allegations remotely disclose cognizable offence, (3) Assess whether forwarding to police is conducive to justice, (4) Note dates of incidents and any abnormal delays in reporting, (5) Conduct preliminary enquiry in commercial dispute categories to verify credibility, (6) Consider legislative protections afforded to secured creditors under special acts like Section 32 SARFAESI Act, (7) Be vigilant against abuse of Section 156(3) as tool for harassment and extracting settlements. Mere mechanical order 'as per application' without stated reasons is erroneous. Applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by sworn affidavit from applicant, making applicant accountable for false allegations under Section 191 IPC. FIR registration, while mandatory under Section 154 upon cognizable offence information, does not mandate investigation if preliminary enquiry reveals lack of credibility. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressure financial institutions into favorable settlements in debt disputes where statutory forums (DRT/DRAT) exist for resolution.
On this section: Examination of witnesses on complaint; Court noted procedure for pre-cognizance investigation by Magistrate
-
Rakesh vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate does not become functus officio (completely devoid of power) merely by accepting a police final report under Section 173 CrPC. The Magistrate retains the independent power to take cognizance of an offence on the basis of a complaint or protest petition filed by the first informant or complainant, even after accepting a negative final report, provided the Magistrate independently applies his mind to the facts and circumstances and follows the appropriate legal procedure under Sections 190, 200, and 202 CrPC. The mere acceptance of a final report does not foreclose or bar the exercise of this power.
On this section: Section 202 provides for holding inquiry or directing investigation; discretionary after recording statements under Section 200
-
Fiona Shrikhande vs State of Maharashtra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When examining a complaint for the offence under Section 504 IPC (Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace), a Magistrate need not require that the exact insulting words be verbatim reproduced in the complaint. Instead, the complaint must be read as a whole, and if it discloses prima facie that there has been intentional insult capable of provoking any person to break public peace or commit another offence, considering all background facts, circumstances, occasion, manner of conduct, persons involved, and context, the Magistrate has sufficient grounds to take cognizance and issue process. The discretion exercised by the Magistrate in forming such an opinion cannot be substituted by higher courts.
On this section: Governs the magistrate's power to inquire into a complaint before taking cognizance. Court clarified that the scope of inquiry under Section 202 is extremely limited - magistrate is expected to examine prima facie the truth or falsehood of allegations and consider inherent probabilities apparent on the statement in the complaint, without embarking upon detailed discussion of merits or demerits.
-
K. L. Singh vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have occurred in 1996, with the claim for damages being rejected in 2001 and communicated thereafter, cannot be initiated in 2011 (more than 9 years after rejection). The alleged offence of misappropriation/criminal breach of trust constitutes an instantaneous offence, not a continuing offence. The injury caused was complete on the date of rejection of the claim. Successive complaints on identical facts filed by frustrated litigants who have failed in civil and arbitration proceedings, after full consideration and dismissal of earlier complaints on merit, constitute abuse of process and are not maintainable under law. The courts must protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons through frivolous criminal complaints.
On this section: Mandatory requirement for Magistrate to enquire or direct investigation before issuing summons when accused resides outside territorial jurisdiction. Applied to hold that Magistrate failed to follow this provision.
-
Dinesh Prasad vs Nitesh Kumar Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed during a period when the Supreme Court has extended the limitation period through a Suo Motu order (as was done during the COVID-19 pandemic from March 15, 2020 to February 28, 2022), the trial court must take judicial notice of such extension order and cannot hold the complaint to be barred by limitation if it was filed within the extended period. The trial court's failure to consider such a binding Supreme Court order and acquitting the accused solely on the ground of limitation, without examining the merits of the case, constitutes an error of law that warrants interference by the appellate court.
On this section: Inquiry before taking cognizance - the trial court conducted inquiry under this section before proceeding against the accused
-
M/S. SAMPATI SECURITIES LIMITED AUTHORIZED PERSON OF JIGARKUMAR NARMADA SHANKAR RAVAL vs SHIVAM GOYAL
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an affidavit in support of a complaint under Section 145(1) of the NI Act is filed, separate verification of the complainant under Section 200 of the CrPC is not mandatory for issuing process.
On this section: Mandatory inquiry for accused residing outside the court's jurisdiction.
-
Sangeeta Rajbongshi vs Pankaj Das
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When prosecution witnesses fail to subject themselves to cross-examination after charge is framed, the evidence recorded before charge must be expunged, and in the absence of any other evidence on record, the accused cannot be convicted as the burden of proof in criminal cases requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which cannot be discharged without credible and tested evidence.
On this section: Examination of witnesses during cognizance stage - The court examined two witnesses under this section before taking cognizance.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… Learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Sunil Mehta and Another (supra). In that case, Appellant before the Supreme Court were accused against whom process was issued by the Magistrate after conducting inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That was challenged before High Court unsuccessfully. When the parties were before the trial Court for adducing evidence under Section 244, Respondent-Complainant therein, chose not to lead any evidence and whatever was submitted alongwith complaint, was to be considered for …
-
… In the Nagawwa vs. V.S. Konjalgi , 1976 3 SCC 736, it was inter alia held as under: ―The scope of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is extremely limited - limited only to the ascertainment of the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint(i) on the materials placed by the complainant before the court (i) for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case for issue of process has …
-
… The next contention advanced by the learned Senior counsel is with $20.$ regard to the alleged failure of the learned Magistrate to conduct an enguiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners have not produced the order issuing process to the accused. In the objection filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the learned magistrate had conducted an enquiry as contemplated under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. While issuing process, …
Questions about Section 202
What have the courts held on Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (31 Mar 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.202 postponement/inquiry is the statutory check before process. A Magistrate must apply mind; a mechanical bailable-warrant on a complaint is set aside (Mehmood Ul Rehman, following Pepsi Foods). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 202, section 202 CRPC, section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda (31 Mar 2015).
What should I read with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 192 (Making over of cases to Magistrates), section 200 (Examination of complainant), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 225 (Postponement of issue of process), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 202, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.