IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.
Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya Satyanarayana Murthy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos.32906 and 33022 of 2022
Decided On : 18-10-2022
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 160 - INTERPRETATION - ADJOINING STATION - NOTIFICATION - JURISDICTION - VALIDITY OF NOTICE - ARTICLE 20(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, employees of two TV news channels, challenged the legality of notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to appear before the Investigating Officer in a crime registered by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) Police Station of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners contended that the notices were invalid as they were issued by an officer who did not have jurisdiction over their place of residence, which was in Hyderabad, Telangana. The prosecution argued that the CID Police Station of Andhra Pradesh was declared as a police station for the entire state, and the CID Police Station of Telangana was declared as a police station for the entire state of Telangana, making them adjoining stations.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the impugned notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were legally valid and sustainable. It interpreted the term 'adjoining station' in Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. to include the CID Police Station of Telangana, which was declared as a police station for the entire state of Telangana, in relation to the CID Police Station of Andhra Pradesh, which was declared as a police station for the entire state of Andhra Pradesh. The court relied on notifications issued by both the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., which declared the offices of the Crime Investigation Department in both states as police stations for the entire respective states.
Issues: 1. Whether the notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners were legally valid and sustainable? 2. Whether the CID Police Station of Telangana could be considered an adjoining station to the CID Police Station of Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of issuing notices under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C.? 3. Whether the issuance of notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits testimonial compulsion.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term 'adjoining station' in Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. to include the CID Police Station of Telangana, which was declared as a police station for the entire state of Telangana, in relation to the CID Police Station of Andhra Pradesh, which was declared as a police station for the entire state of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The court relied on notifications issued by both the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., which declared the offices of the Crime Investigation Department in both states as police stations for the entire respective states. 3. The court held that the impugned notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were legally valid and sustainable as the petitioners were residing within the limits of the adjoining station.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, upholding the validity of the impugned notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The court directed the Investigating Officer to inform the petitioners in writing about the fresh date of appearance and to treat them with human dignity during the examination.
ORDER :
1. In these two Writ Petitions the petitioners challenge the legal validity of the notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to them to appear before the Investigating Officer in Crime No.12 of 2021 of CID Police Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh, for the purpose of investigation in the said crime.
2. As the impugned notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. were issued to the petitioners in the same crime i.e. Crime No.12 of 2021 of CID Police Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh, both the Writ Petitions were heard together and they are being disposed of by this common order.
3. Factual matrix of both the Writ Petitions lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:
a) A case in Crime No.12 of 2021 was suo moto registered by the Crime Investigation Department Police Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 124- A, 153-A, 505 r/w.120-B of IPC. It was registered against Sri Kanumuru Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju, Member of Parliament of Narasapuram Lok Sabha Constituency of West Godavari District and ABN News Channel and TV5 News Channel. The said crime is now under investigation. Whileso, accused No.1 Sri Kanumuru Raghu Rama Krishnam Raju has filed a Writ Petition in this Court seeking quash of the said F.I.R. and sought for stay of investigation. This court ordered that the investigation shall go on. However, for the reasons stated in the said order, directed that if at all the Investigating Officer requires the presence of accused No.1 for interrogation or examination in connection with the said case that he shall be examined in Dilkusha Guest House in Hyderabad. Similarly, accused Nos.2 and 3 viz., ABN and TV5 news channels approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the registration of the said crime against the said two T.V. news channels. The Apex Court ordered not to take any coercive steps against the said two TV news channels and their personnel. Thus, there is no order passed staying the investigation in any of the proceedings initiated by the three accused in the said crime. Therefore, the investigation is going on.
(b) Whileso, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer issued the impugned notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners in these two writ petitions, who are the employees of the said two TV news channels i.e. ABN and TV5 news channels, directing them to appear before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation in the said crime.
(c) The petitioners now challenge the legal validity of the impugned notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the Police Officer is authorized or empowered under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to summon a person only when the said person is residing within the territorial limits of the police station of the said officer or residing within the territorial limits of any adjoining station as per the language employed in Section 160 Cr.P.C. and he is not empowered to summon a person who is residing beyond the limits of his police station or the adjoining station. It is their specific version that the crime was registered by the CID police of the State of Andhra Pradesh and the petitioners have been residing in Hyderabad in the State of Telangana and as such, they are not residing within the limits of the C.I.D. Police Station of the State of Andhra Pradesh or within the limits of the adjoining station. Therefore, they seek to impeach the notices issued by the CID Police of the State of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that they have no jurisdiction or competence to issue any such notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, who are residing beyond the territorial limits of the said Police Station or the adjoining station and thereby prayed to declare the impugned notices as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently, prayed
Krishan Bans BNhadur v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Mathews Peter v. Asst. Police Inspector, Crime Branch-II, Pune
AI
The term 'adjoining station' in Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. can include a police station declared as a police station for an entire state, in relation to another police station declared as a police statio....
A Police Officer making investigation may require attendance of “any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station ”, thereby, clearly and unequivocally setting limits to the jur....
(1) Alternative remedy is not a bar to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India.(2) Section 160 of Cr.P.C. it must apply even to investigations of CBI.
Sections of CrPC would apply only if the field is not covered, in any manner, by the provisions of the special enactment by way of the PMLA.
Under garb of Section 160 of Cr.P.C. a person unconnected with offence, cannot be directed to appear through notice under Section 160, for adopting short cut method of denying right of such person to....
The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away by any subordinate legislation, and the court must protect individual liberties and rights under Article 21.
The court affirmed that notices issued under Section 179 of the BNSS are valid for investigative purposes and not subject to challenge if statutory provisions are followed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.