Reporting By: Amit Kashyap.
First lets see what is Section 160 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(1) Any police officer, making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required: Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub- section (1) at any place other than his residence.
Now the Judgement
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in Kulvinder Singh Kohli v State of NCT of Delhi and Ors, W.P.(CRL) 611/2022 has held that registration of a First Information Report (FIR) is necessary to issue notices/summons under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring attendance of a person.
The Hon’ble Bench said that police cannot be said to be conducting investigation under the CrPC without registration of an FIR and summons under Section 160 can be issued by an officer only to persons living in the limits of his own or adjoining station.
“Summons/notices under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. can be issued by a Police Officer who is making investigation under and in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., and to set into motion such an investigation there is a pre-requisite of registration of FIR. Without registration of FIR, an investigation cannot be said to have been initiated,” the Court said.
Even for an enquiry to be held legal and valid, the Police Officer has to act in accordance with provisions of the CrPC and he may not act beyond his powers by conducting a preliminary enquiry without making a report to a Magistrate, the Court added.
The Court was dealing with a petition by Kulvinder Singh Kohli a lawyer and founder of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd challenging the summons issued by Deputy Captain Police, Cyber Crime, SAS Nagar in investigation of an application.
The application contained allegations against Kohli and one Harvansjit Singh for offences under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 501 (printing defamatory content), 504 (intentional insult to provoke peace), 505 (public mischief), 295A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
However, the petitioner argued that he is almost 60-year-old and has chronic heart disease. His counsel stated the summons/notices were against the process of law as they were issued before registration of a case.
The counsel added that the summons was also without jurisdiction as they had been issued from SAS Nagar while Kohli lives in Delhi.
Justice Singh held that the Punjab Police issued summons to Kohli before registration of a case and it was indeed without jurisdiction.
The Court, therefore, quashed three summoning orders issued by Punjab Police.
“…it is found that firstly, the notice under Section 160 of the CrPC. was not issued at the right stage by the respondent no. 3 (police), since, he could not have been said to be conducting investigation under the CrPC. without the registration of FIR for the purpose of issuance of the notice under Section 160 and secondly, the summons/notices were issued without jurisdiction from the concerned authority in SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab to the petitioner residing beyond its own station as well as any adjoining station,” the Court held.
***********
Important Citation regarding the issue :
V.N. Pachaimuthu vs. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District & Ors, 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 1020.
Ravinder Singh vs. State & Anr, WP (Crl) No. 971/2010 dated 27th July, 2010, Delhi High Court.
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya vs. State of
Karnataka (2012) 7 SCC 407
Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 1
Advocate For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with advocates Kapil Midha and Versha Singh.
Advocate For Respondents: Additional Standing Counsel (ASC) Rajesh Mahajan appeared for State of Delhi, Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, AAG for R-2/State of Punjab with Mr. Gurlabh Singh and Mr. Tushar Agarwal.
***********
Judgements In Criminal Law 