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 broader power of issuing notices under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. based on reasonable complaints or suspicions of cognizable offenses.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the unnumbered summons dated 02.06.2022 in CSR No.821 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.)

This petition has been filed to quash the unnumbered summons dated 02.06.2022 in CSR No.821 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

2. It is the case of the Petitioners that a complaint has been launched by one Mrs. V. Ambiga, formerly rendering accounting services to the company of the Petitioners herein. She lodged complaint in lieu of certain salary due to her. The police have issued summons in CSR No.821 of 2022 for the appearance of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners mainly submitted that without registering the FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the police have issued summons under Section 160 of Cr.P.C., calling upon the Petitioners who are resident of Bangalore. Hence, it is his contention that issuance of summons outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent Police is not valid in the eye of law. Only after registering the FIR, summons should be issued. Therefore, submitted that issuance of summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. before commencing investigation is contrary to law.

4. In support of his submissions he also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in V.N. Pachaimuthu vs. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram [2012 (3) CTC 291] and the order passed by this Court in Benjamin vs. The Superintendent of Police [Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9821 of 2017 dated 05.09.2019] and Preetham vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police and another [ Crl.O.P.No.15000 of 2021 dated 31.08.2021].

5. Whereas the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that summons were not issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. Whereas notice has been issued calling for preliminary enquiry. Therefore, the same cannot be be quashed.

6. I have perused the materials.

7. The impugned notice when carefully seen, there is no reference under 160 Cr.P.C. and just a notice has been issued calling upon the petitioner to come with documents for enquiry. The police has not referred the provision of Section 160 Cr.P.C. in that notice.

8. Be that as it may. Section 160 Cr.P.C. deals with police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses. Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required: Provided that (1) no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides; 2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.

9. On a careful perusal of the above provision, for issuance of summons the same can be issued for attendance of witness who resides within the limit of the police station jurisdiction or any adjoining station. Further on a perusal of the Section makes it very clear that the issuance of the summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. applies only to the cases of persons who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, who are only witness or possible witnesses. Once the FIR has been registered as against the accused, summons cannot be issued against the accused under Section 160 Cr.P.C. for requiring his attendance for an accused person with a view to answering the charge made against him, as held by the Apex Court in State vs. NMT Joy Immaculate reported in AIR 2004 SC 2282. This Court also in V.N. Pachaimuthu's case (supra) has held that Notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. can be issued only to witness in any pending FIR but not to a person who is an accused. There