IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Poonam A. Bamba, J.
Jamshed Adil Khan - Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir - Respondent
W.P. (Crl.)976 of 2022, Crl. M.A 8240 of 22 & Crl. M.A 10543 of 22
Decided On : 08-07-2022
Summons - Jurisdiction - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 160 - [FIR no. 153/2021 of Police Station Pampore u/s 370, 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act] - The court quashed the summons issued to the petitioners under Section 160 Cr.P.C by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pampore, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, as the petitioners being residents of Delhi and having their office addresses of Noida, U.P, could not have been summoned under Section 160 Cr.P.C by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pampore, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. However, this shall not come in the way of the investigating agency to examine the petitioners as per law at Delhi, if so required. Nor shall quashing of the impugned summon would have any reflection on merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an investigative journalist, reported on the adoption of children orphaned during Covid-19 for a price. Subsequently, the police issued a summons to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C, which the petitioner challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the summons issued to the petitioners were without jurisdiction and quashed them. However, the quashing of the summons would not affect the merits of the case or prevent the investigating agency from examining the petitioners as per law at Delhi, if required.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the summons issued to the petitioners under Section 160 Cr.P.C by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pampore, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners being residents of Delhi and having their office addresses of Noida, U.P, could not have been summoned under Section 160 Cr.P.C by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pampore, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and the court quashed the summons issued to the petitioners under Section 160 Cr.P.C by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pampore, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
JUDGMENT
Poonam A. Bamba, J.:
1.0. Vide this writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), the petitioner has prayed as under:
"(a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order of direction of like nature quashing the Summons dated 17.03.2022 bearing No. SDPO/PMP/C-3/2022/1540 and No. SDPO/PMP/C-3/2022/1541 issued by the Office of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Pampore and any other consequential notices and/or orders that may be passed qua the Petitioners in FIR no. 153/2021 of Police Station Pampore u/s 370, 120-B Indian Penal Code and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act;
(b) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case."
2.0. It is submitted by the petitioner that :
(i) the petitioner no. 1 is an investigative journalist. A report prepared by the petitioner no. 1 regarding giving in adoption the children orphaned during Covid-19 for a price, was broadcast on air on 30.11.2021 followed by the publishing of an article titled `The Pandemic's ruthless toll - Covid orphans up for sale';
(ii) on 01.12.2021, the Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Pulwama forwarded a written complaint to P.S. Pampore for registration of a formal case in the matter. Based on the said complaint, the aforesaid FIR no. 153/2021 was registered;
(iii) on 10.12.2021, the respondent no. 2/office of the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Pampore issued a summon u/s 91 of CrPC to the News Director, India Today Group directing the News Director to provide the following information:
a. Original/Unedited footage of the video
b. Complete details of the sting operation team for recording of their statements;
(iv) on 13.12.2021, a representative from the office of respondent no. 2 visited the office of TV Today Network at Noida, U.P. to collect the information. The TV Today Network Ltd. handed over a letter to respondent no. 2 in response to the notice u/s 91 of CrPC along with the CD in question;
(v) on 11.02.2022, the office of the ACP/Enquiry Officer, Anti Human Traffic Unit, (AHTU) Crime Branch, Delhi police sent a letter/notice to Mr. Rahul Kumar Shaw, CEO, TV & Radio, The India Today Group, requesting for various details and video footages of sting operation and same was responded by India Today Group informing that Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Govt, of NCT of Delhi had taken suo moto cognizance over the report of the petitioners and directed the Delhi Police to conduct inquiry and take cognizance of the matter. By way of said letters, request was also made for providing details of video footage of their investigation/sting operation;
(vi) the above letter of AHTU was replied by TV Today Network Ltd., vide its reply dated 23.02.2022, providing a CD of the complete video footage of the news report and further details as requested by the AHTU, Delhi Police. In that regard, a further reply was given by TV Today Network Ltd., on 24.02.2022 informing that they have also received a notice u/s 91 CrPC from respondent no. 2/Sub-Divisional Police Office, Pampore;
(vii) on 17.03.2022 the respondent no. 2/office of Sub-Divisional Police Officer Pampore, Union territory of Jammu & Kashmir issued the impugned summons to the petitioners no. 1 & 3 u/s 160 CrPC directing the petitioners herein to attend the office of Sub-Divisional Police Officer Pampore, within 2 days. Said summon was received on 23.03.2022. The said notice is illegal and needs to be quashed.
2.1. It is submitted that notice under Section 160(1) of the Cr.P.C can only be issued to a person who is situated within the local jurisdiction of that police station or is within the adjoining police station. Therefore, a police station in Jammu and Kashmir could not have issued notice to the petitioners who are residents of Delhi and are outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent no. 2 office.
3.0. This petition is opposed by ld. counsel fo
AI
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....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between Section 160 Cr.P.C. and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. in summoning witnesses and conducting preliminary inquiries, emphasizing the b....
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.
(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.
Jurisdiction of Investigating Officer under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and the right of the accused against self-incrimination
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.
Summons under Section 179 BNSS cannot be issued during preliminary enquiry without FIR registration, as power exercisable only during investigation commencing post-FIR.
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.