2022 (7) TMI 1568 - HC - Indian Laws

Issuance of summons under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. without registering the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - The impugned notice when carefully seen there is no reference under 160 Cr.P.C. and just a notice has been issued calling upon the petitioner to come with documents for enquiry. The police has not referred the provision of Section 160 Cr.P.C.in that notice. For issuance of summons the same can be issued for attendance of witness who resides within the limit of the police station jurisdiction or any adjoining station. Further on a perusal of the Section makes it very clear that the issuance of the summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. applies only to the cases of persons who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case who are only witness or possible witnesses. Once the FIR has been registered as against the accused summons cannot be issued against the accused under Section 160 Cr.P.C.for requiring his attendance for an accused person with a view to answering the charge made against him. The complaint given before the Police is relating to the dispute arising out of employment. Therefore any cognizable offence is made out or not it is the duty of the police to make an enquiry to ascertain any congnizable offence is made out. In such a view of the matter it cannot be said that police has no power to call for any enquiry of any person. The distinction between Section 160 and 41-A Cr.P.C.is that summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C.could be issued only to the witnesses within the jurisdiction of the police station or adjoining police station. Summons cannot be extended to beyond the jurisdiction. Whereas Section 41-A Cr.P.C.does not restrict the police to issue a notice to any person. The restriction of the jurisdiction also taken away. Therefore the police can very well issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. when there is reasonable complaint made or any suspicion exists that he has committed any cognizable offence. In such a view of the matter the police is always have a power to issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to ascertain as to whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. Conclusion - i) The distinction between Section 160 and 41-A Cr.P.C. is that summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. could be issued only to the witnesses within the jurisdiction of the police station or adjoining police station. Summons cannot be extended to beyond the jurisdiction. ii) The notices for preliminary inquiries can be issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. without jurisdictional limitations while Section 160 Cr.P.C. is limited to witnesses within jurisdiction.

2025 (1) TMI 150 - HC

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the issuance of summons by the police without registering an FIR is valid under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
Whether the police have the authority to issue a notice for preliminary inquiry without specifying the relevant legal provision.
Distinction between the application of Section 160 Cr.P.C. and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. concerning the issuance of summons or notices by the police.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Summons Issuance Without FIR Registration

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 160 Cr.P.C. allows police officers to require the attendance of witnesses within their jurisdiction. Precedents such as V.N. Pachaimuthu vs. The Superintendent of Police and others were considered, which emphasize that summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. should be issued only to witnesses and not to accused persons.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the summons in question did not explicitly reference Section 160 Cr.P.C. and was merely a notice for inquiry. It emphasized that Section 160 Cr.P.C. applies to witnesses within the jurisdiction and adjoining stations, not to accused individuals.
Key Evidence and Findings: The notice lacked any reference to Section 160 Cr.P.C., indicating it was not a formal summons under this provision. The court found that the police had not registered an FIR, which is a prerequisite for issuing summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal framework of Section 160 Cr.P.C. and concluded that the issuance of summons without registering an FIR was not permissible.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioner's counsel argued that the summons was invalid without an FIR. The government advocate contended it was a notice for preliminary inquiry, not a summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C.
Conclusions: The court quashed the notice, indicating that the police must follow proper procedures, including FIR registration, before issuing summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C.

Issue 2: Authority to Issue Notice for Preliminary Inquiry

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referred to the guidelines established in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, which allows preliminary inquiries in certain cases before FIR registration.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court highlighted that preliminary inquiries are permissible to ascertain whether a cognizable offense is made out, especially in commercial disputes.
Key Evidence and Findings: The complaint related to an employment dispute, warranting a preliminary inquiry to determine if a cognizable offense was involved.
Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the police were within their rights to conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the nature of the offense.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the petitioner's argument against the need for police to conduct preliminary inquiries in certain cases.
Conclusions: The court allowed for the possibility of issuing a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for preliminary inquiries.

Issue 3: Distinction Between Section 160 and Section 41-A Cr.P.C.

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 41-A Cr.P.C. pertains to issuing notices to individuals against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, without jurisdictional limitations.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court clarified that Section 41-A Cr.P.C. allows police to issue notices beyond jurisdictional constraints, unlike Section 160 Cr.P.C.
Key Evidence and Findings: The notice did not specify under which section it was issued, leading to ambiguity.
Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that the police could issue a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for preliminary inquiries, regardless of jurisdiction.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns but emphasized the broader scope of Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
Conclusions: The court quashed the notice but permitted the police to issue a new notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for a preliminary inquiry.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The distinction between Section 160 and 41-A Cr.P.C. is that summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. could be issued only to the witnesses within the jurisdiction of the police station or adjoining police station. Summons cannot be extended to beyond the jurisdiction."
Core Principles Established: The court established that notices for preliminary inquiries can be issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. without jurisdictional limitations, while Section 160 Cr.P.C. is limited to witnesses within jurisdiction.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court quashed the impugned notice, allowing the police to issue a new notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. for conducting a preliminary inquiry in line with the guidelines from Lalitha Kumari's case.

← Previous Next →