Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Shampa Dutt Paul, J.
Ram Chandra Panda & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State Of West Bengal & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 3047 of 2022
Decided On : 09-01-2023
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Quashing of Notices under Section 160 - Prevention of Abuse of Process of Law - Protection of Liberty - Police Officer's Power to Require Attendance of Witnesses.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners sought to quash notices issued to them under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with a criminal case, apprehending arrest during examination. One of the petitioners was arrested and granted bail after the court found that the investigating agency's conduct led to the arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the investigating agency's practice of issuing notices under Section 160 to indirectly arrest persons, when they could be directly arrested in appropriate cases, was to prevent the person from availing the benefit of anticipatory bail or protective orders. This practice was found to be in violation of natural justice and an abuse of process of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the investigating agency's practice of issuing notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to indirectly arrest persons was an abuse of process of law? 2. Whether the court could exercise its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process of law and secure the ends of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on precedents holding that the inherent powers of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 2. The court found that the investigating agency's practice of issuing notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to indirectly arrest persons was an abuse of process of law as it was intended to prevent the person from availing the benefit of anticipatory bail or protective orders. 3. The court held that in such circumstances, the court should not hesitate to exercise its inherent powers to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
Final Decision: The court directed that if the petitioner's presence was required for investigation, he should be given at least 72 hours' notice to appear. The court also directed that if the investigating agency proposed to accuse the petitioner of any alleged offense and start a criminal case against him, he should not be arrested for a period of 10 days from such decision to enable him to avail of his remedies against arrest available in law.
JUDGMENT
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - The revisional application is moved by Mr. Rajdeep Majumder, learned Counsel for the petitioner with a prayer for setting aside of the impugned notices dated 04.07.2022, 05.07.2022, 23.07.2022, 06.08.2022 and 07.08.2022 issued to the petitioners under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Contai P.S. Case No. 265 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1357 of 2022 under Section 406/409/420/467/468/471/477A/120B of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that the Police in the garb of a notice under Section 160 of the code of Criminal Procedure, is arresting persons during examination. Documents (G. R. 1357 of 2022 in connection with Contai P.S. Case No. 265 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022) relating to such an incident leading to such arrest made in respect of (accused) Alok Sahoo, have been filed by the petitioner.
2. Apprehending such arrest the present application has been filed, praying for setting aside/quashing of the said notices.
3. Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is in due course of investigation that a notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. is issued by virtue of power conferred upon the Police Officer (Investigating Officer) and if orders as prayed for by the petitioner is passed, it shall hamper proper investigation and thus will be an abuse of the process of court and also against the interest of justice.
4. It is further submitted that Section 160 Cr.P.C. empowers a Police Officer making an investigation under chapter XII of the code to requires the attendance of any person..........
5. A notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. is issued to such persons where it appears that a person may be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such a notice under Section 160 of the Code issued in due course of investigation cannot be quashed.
6. Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Learned Counsel for the defacto complainant/opposite party no. 2 while supporting the Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. being an integral part of investigation and being issued in accordance with law cannot be quashed as it is not an abuse of process of either Court or law, the same being issued in the interest of justice.
7. Considering the submissions of the learned lawyers for the parties in this case and the materials placed before this court, the following facts are on records:-
(a) Notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been issued against the petitioners in respect of Contai P.S. Case no. 265 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022.
(b) Alok Sahoo was taken into custody in connection with (the same case) Contai P.S. Case No. 265 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022, when notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. had been issued to him and he had complied with the same.
(c) The present petitioners have also been served with notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in connection with (the same case) Contai P.S. Case No. 265 of 2022 dated 29.06.2022.
8. On 08.09.2022, this Court on hearing both sides while considering the prayer of the petitioners for stay of the said notices/pending prayer for quashing at the time of final hearing, granted interim protection to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum/competent court for relief, relying upon the rulings of the Supreme Court in 2021 SCC online Sc 315 para 80 (Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs The State of Maharashtra and others) and in (Subrata Chattoraj Vs Union of India and Ors. (2019)7, SCC 393).
9. On 15.09.2022 the order of interim relief was extended relying upon the judgment in Rajesh Seth Vs The State of Chattisgarh Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 1247 of 2022 during pendency of the application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Tamluk.
10. The application for Anticipatory Bail was 'not pressed' as the Session Judge held as follows:-
'Considered the submission of Ld. PP, Ld. Advocate for the petitioners and I.O., wherefrom it appears tha
AI
The court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that a petition seeking advance notice before arrest/detention, without challenging the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., is not maintainable under....
The inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the Court cannot function as a Court of Appeal or Revision.
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
