SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1673

Prakash Transports – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr.N.A. Ravindran, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.I. Subramanian, Public Prosecutor for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. This is a petition to quash the summons issued by the respondent police. The summons issued to the petitioners is at page No. 1 of the typeset. The summons reads as follows :

In respect of complaint given by one Mr. G. Ravichandran, 41, Sankari Main Road, Annadanaptti, Salem, I hereby issue summon to you under Section 160, Cr.P.C. to 1 to 7 of you, requesting all of you to make yourself available before me at my office for my enquiry into the complaint of Mr. G. Ravichandran against you, on 15.3.2002 at 10.30 a.m. without fail”.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as no crime was registered by the respondent-police, he has no jurisdiction to issue summons under Section 160, Cr.P.C. compelling the petitioners to appear before him and therefore, the summons has to be quashed. I find some substance in the said contention. The summons, which I have extracted above, shows that the officer did not even mention the crime number in the said summons. The learned Public Prosecutor also submits that no crime was registered by the respondent. If that be the case, it is not understandable as to how he should issue summons, since under Section 160, Cr.P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top