Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudhir Mittal, J.
Lovish Kathuria - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CWP N 12981 of 2020(O&M)
Decided On : 09-02-2021
Jurisdiction - Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 160, 41-A - Information Technology Act, 2000 - 43(a), 66, 66C, 66D - The court quashed notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. as the concerned police officer lacked jurisdiction to require the petitioner's attendance and there was no credible information to treat the petitioner as an accused.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to quash notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and Section 41-A Cr.P.C. by the Mumbai police in relation to a case involving misuse of social platforms for promotion of a song.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notices were illegal and without jurisdiction as the concerned police officer lacked jurisdiction to require the petitioner's attendance and there was no credible information to treat the petitioner as an accused.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the notices under Section 160 Cr.P.C. and Section 41-A Cr.P.C., and the basis of treating the petitioner as an accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the concerned police officer lacked jurisdiction to require the petitioner's attendance under Section 160 Cr.P.C. as the petitioner resided outside the territorial jurisdiction. Additionally, there was no credible information available to treat the petitioner as an accused under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notices dated 22.08.2020 and 02.09.2020 were quashed. The Mumbai police was permitted to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT
Sudhir Mittal, J. (Oral). - The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing notice dated 22.08.2020 (Annexure P-2) under Section 160 Cr.P.C. issued by Criminal Intelligence Unit, DCB, CID, Crime Branch, Mumbai as well as notice dated 02.09.2020 issued under Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
2. The Mumbai police has registered a case namely DCB CR No.108/2020 under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 201, 34 of IPC read with 43(a), 66, 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000 against certain persons. The notices aforementioned have been issued in relation to the said case. The allegations in the case are that certain persons have misused social platforms for creating fake identities for promotion of a song sung by Aditya Prateek Singh Aka Badshah.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notice dated 22.08.2020 (Annexure P-2) is illegal and without jurisdiction as the said notice could only be issued to summon a witness residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned police station or any adjoining police station. The petitioner is a resident of Sri Muktsar Sahib and could not have been summoned under Section 160 Cr.P.C. Regarding the notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C, it has been argued that the said notice was issued during the pendency of the writ petition. There is no material available with the police to nominate the petitioner as an accused and thus, the said notice is malafide.
4. Learned counsel representing respondents No.3 & 4 has referred to an email dated 20.08.2020 received by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai from some individual alleging wrong doing by the petitioner. He has also referred to the statement of Aditya Prateek Singh Aka Badshah wherein the said person has acknowledged that he knows the petitioner and that he is associated with Sony Music India. It has also been acknowledged that he deals in digital marketing. On the basis of this evidence, it has been argued that the police have reasonable suspicion against the petitioner and possessed the jurisdiction to summon him as an accused.
5. Sections 41-A and 160 Cr.P.C. are reproduced below for ready reference.
"41 A. Notice of appearance before police officer. (1) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.
(2) Where such a notice is issued to any person, it shall be the duty of that person to comply with the terms of the notice.
(3) Where such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
(4) Where such person, at any time, fails to comply with the terms of the notice or is unwilling to identify himself, the police officer may, subject to such orders as may have been passed by a competent Court in this behalf, arrest him for the offence mentioned in the notice. "
"160. Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.
(1) Any police officer, making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being 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 no male person [under the age of fifteen years or above the age of 65 years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person] shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government m
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
