In a significant legal development, the Jharkhand High Court has quashed the summons and subsequent non-bailable warrant issued against Mark Reidy, a Swiss resident, in a criminal case. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the procedures outlined in the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) between India and Switzerland, which mandates that investigative agencies must obtain concurrence from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) before seeking the attendance of individuals residing in contracting states.
The case originated from a complaint filed by Kishor Exports, represented by proprietor Deepak Agarwal, alleging that Reidy and employees of his company, WINC, committed offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating and forgery. Acting on this complaint, the investigating agency directly approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Ranchi, leading to the issuance of summons to Reidy. Upon his non-appearance, a non-bailable warrant was subsequently issued.
Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary, presiding over the matter, observed that the investigative agency's direct approach to the CJM without routing the request through the MHA was procedurally flawed. The court highlighted that, according to the MLAT guidelines, any request to secure the attendance of a person from a contracting state must first be forwarded as a draft to the Internal Security-II (IS-II) Division of the MHA. This draft request requires the approval of the Director of the Investigating Agency or the State Government before submission to the MHA. Only after the MHA's examination and concurrence can the investigative agency approach the court to issue a Letter of Request (LR) or send the Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request.
The court's ruling underscores the importance of following established international protocols and internal guidelines when dealing with cross-border legal matters. By bypassing the MHA and directly seeking judicial intervention, the investigative agency did not comply with the procedural safeguards designed to ensure proper diplomatic and legal channels are utilized. This oversight not only contravenes the MLAT provisions but also raises concerns about the infringement of the rights of individuals residing in foreign jurisdictions.
Furthermore, the court noted that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant in such circumstances was unwarranted. Non-bailable warrants are coercive measures that should be employed judiciously, especially in cases involving foreign nationals where diplomatic relations and international legal obligations are at stake. The court's decision to quash the warrant reflects a commitment to upholding due process and ensuring that legal actions align with both domestic laws and international agreements.
This judgment serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement agencies about the necessity of adhering to procedural protocols, especially in cases with international dimensions. The court clarified that while the investigative agency retains the liberty to pursue the matter, it must do so by first obtaining the MHA's concurrence in line with the MLAT guidelines. This approach not only fosters respect for international treaties but also ensures that the sovereignty and legal frameworks of all involved nations are duly respected.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court's ruling reinforces the principle that legal processes involving foreign nationals must be conducted with strict adherence to established protocols. Such diligence ensures the protection of individual rights and maintains the integrity of international relations, reflecting India's commitment to upholding the rule of law both domestically and in the global arena.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.