Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Kulvinder Singh Kohli – Petitioner
Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi and Others – Respondents
W.P. (Crl) No. 611 of 2022
Decided On : 10-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Mr. Kapil Midha, Ms. Versha Singh.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Mr. Aadil Singh Boparai, Mr. Gurlabh Singh, Mr. Tushar Agarwal.

Point of Law: 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 jurisdiction within which the police officer is permitted to act.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 2(h), 160 and 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 153A/501/504/505/295A/506 - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 – Criminal Intimidation - Quash of summons/notices - Petitioner is an Advocate, running his law firm and is also Founder and Non-Executive Chairman of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner received summons from concerned aforesaid authority, Deputy Captain Police/respondent no. 3, on three occasions, in connection with complaint made by one Singh and his son. Complaint, as appended with petition, contains allegations against petitioner - What stage a notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. can be issued - Whether concerned authority/respondent no. 3 acted within his powers in terms of territorial limitations while issuing the notices under Section 160 of Cr.P.C - The bar of jurisdiction under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. is indisputably applicable to instant matter and in such a case, notice issued can rightly be said to be issued without jurisdiction. (Para 31)
Finding of the court:
Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. includes all proceedings under Cr.P.C. for collection of evidence under the ambit of investigation. In present case, concerned authority received the complaint made by complainants wherein several allegations were made by them against petitioner and other prospective co-accused and upon receiving complaint, it issued summons under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. giving opportunity to petitioner to appear personally for further enquiry into complaint and the allegations leveled in it - Provisions under Cr.P.C. as well as the observations made by Courts of Country, it is found that firstly, the notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. was not issued at the right stage by the respondent no. 3, since, he could not have been said to be conducting investigation under Cr.P.C. without the registration of FIR for the purpose of issuance of the notice under Section 160 and secondly, summons/notices were issued without jurisdiction from the concerned authority in S.A.S. Nagar, to petitioner residing beyond its own station as well as any adjoining station - Impugned notices issued to petitioner by the respondent no. 3 are liable to be set aside for the reason of being issued in contravention of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.
Result: Petition is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.

1. The instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for issuance of writ, order or direction to quash the summons dated 25th January, 2022, 25th February, 2022 and 9th March, 2022, issued by Deputy Captain Police, Cyber Crime, Phase-8, District Sahibzada Ajit Singh (S.A.S.) Nagar in investigation of Application No. 10059/S/SSP dated 21st December, 2021.

2. The petitioner is an Advocate, running his law firm, K.S. Kohli & Associates, and is also the Founder and Non-Executive Chairman of Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner received summons from the concerned aforesaid authority, Deputy Captain Police/respondent no. 3, on three occasions, in connection with complaint made by one Rajbikramdeep Singh and his son Munjanpreet Singh. The complaint, as appended with the petition, contains allegations against the petitioner and one Harvansjit Singh, for offences under Section 153A/501/504/505/295A/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter “IT Act”).

3. On 25th January, 2022, the petitioner received summons regarding application dated 21st November, 2021, which read as under:-

“Please note that, you, the below mentioned person/persons are hereby given second opportunity, in connection with the investigation of aforesaid application, to appear personally in the office of Dy. Captain, Police Cyber Crime, Phase-8, District S.A.S. Nagar, along with all your documents and witness(es) on 28-01-2022 at 10.30 AM, to enquire you regarding your involvement in the aforesaid matter, complete the investigation and get resolved the aforesaid application. Treat this as most important.”

4. The true translated and typed contents of the summons dated 25th February, 2022 are reproduced hereunder:-

“You, the following person/persons are hereby given a second opportunity to note that in connection with the investigation of the aforesaid application you are required to appear in the office of the Deputy Captain of Police (Cyber Crime) Phase 8 at District SAS Nagar along with your witnesses and relevant documents on 7-03-2022 at around 11:00 AM so that you can be included in the investigation and interrogated so that the investigation of the application can be completed. This should be considered very important.”

5. On 9th March, 2022, the petitioner received third summons/notice from the concerned authority and the same read as under:-

“You, Kulvinder Singh Kohli s/o Sri Harbans Singh Kohli, House No. 651, Sector 15, Part 01, Pin Code 122001, Gurugram, Haryana, vide Notice bearing no. 31, dated 25-02-2022 of this office, was given the time for 07-03-2022 for participating in the investigation of the aforesaid application but you did not come & appear in the aforesaid application's investigation, instead you sent a written message via WhatsApp asking a copy of the subject application under investigation. In this regard you are hereby informed that under the law, if you need the application, either you can read the same after participating in the investigation or you can apply for a copy thereof through proper channel permissible under law. Thus you are hereby given the last opportunity to appear in this office on 13-03-2022 and place your submissions. In case of non-appearance, the application will be decided on Ex-Party basis and the proceedings will be initiated as required relating to the application.”

6. The petitioner is before this Court assailing all the three summons/notices issued to him under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C.

7. Mr. Vikas Pahwa, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the summons dated 25th January, 2022, was the first correspondence received by him from the concerned authority and there was no other communication received by him prior to it, h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Del) 487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIChandra Dhari Singh, J.Kulvinder Singh Kohli – PetitionerVs.State of NCT of Delhi and Others – RespondentsW.P. (Crl) No. 611 of 2022Decided On : 10-06-2022

Point of Law: 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 jurisdiction within which the police officer is permitted to act.

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Kulvinder Singh Kohli – Petitioner
Vs.
State of NCT of Delhi and Others – Respondents
W.P. (Crl) No. 611 of 2022
Decided On : 10-06-2022