Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Naveen Dabas @ Bali – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 15605 of 2024
Decided On : 05-04-2024
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. Ankit Karna , Mr. Azad , Ms. Kritika Singh , Mr. Kiran Pal Singh AAG, Haryana
IMPORTANT POINT
A production warrant under Section 267 Cr.P.C. requires the court to explicitly state the necessity of the accused's presence for investigation.
Headnote:
Quashing - Production Warrant - Cr.P.C. Section 267 - The court emphasized the necessity for a judicial officer to record satisfaction regarding the need for an accused's presence for investigation before issuing a production warrant, highlighting the importance of due process in criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a production warrant issued by a Judicial Magistrate for his appearance in a criminal case, arguing that the magistrate failed to establish the necessity of his presence for investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the magistrate did not provide any reasoning or satisfaction regarding the necessity of the petitioner's presence, rendering the production warrant legally indefensible.
Issues: Whether the Judicial Magistrate was required to record satisfaction regarding the necessity of the petitioner's presence for investigation before issuing a production warrant under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the issuance of a production warrant must be accompanied by a clear indication of the necessity for the accused's presence, as mandated by Section 267 of the Cr.P.C.
Result: The impugned order dated 16.03.2024 is quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J. :- Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the impugned order dated 16.03.2024 (P-2), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohtak (for short ‘JMIC’), whereby an application of prosecution was allowed and petitioner was ordered to be produced by the Superintendent, Central Jail-2, Tihar, New Delhi on production warrant.
2. For reference, impugned order dated 16.03.2024 (P-2) reads as under:-
“Case received by transfer. It be checked and registered. Accused not produced before the court by the authorities of Tihar Jail, Delhi. Perusal of file shows that production warrants of accused were issued thrice (i.e. on 08.01.2024, 13.01.2024 and 17.02.2024) but the accused has not been produced before the court till date.
PSI Krishan Kumar has appeared and moved an application for issuing production warrants of accused Naveen Bali. Heard and allowed. Superintendent, Central Jail-2, Tihar, New Delhi is strictly directed to produce the said accused on 28.03.2024 in the above said case as the non-production of the accused is causing unnecessary delay in the investigation of this case. The non-production of the accused on the date fixed shall be viewed seriously. The Officer of this case is also directed to co-ordinate with the Superintendent of Police.”
3. Reply by way of an affidavit dated 04.04.2024 of Sh. Rajeev, DSP, Kalanaur, District Rohtak, along with Annexures R-1 to R-3, has been filed. The same is taken on record. Copy thereof supplied to the opposite side.
4. Solitary contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 267 Cr.P.C., it was obligatory upon learned JMIC to record its satisfaction that presence of petitioner is required for investigation in FIR No.217 dated 30.09.2022, under Sections 307, 34, 120-B, 201, IPC; Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, Police Station Bahu Akbarpur, District Rohtak while issuing the impugned production warrant; but there is not even a whisper discernible in this regard.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel in his usual fairness although acknowledged that no reason has been assigned by learned JMIC; but still defending the impugned order on the premise that petitioner is an accused in the aforementioned FIR and he was nominated by co-accused on the basis of disclosure made during investigation.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book.
7. Powers of Criminal Court to issue production warrant in such like matters can be exercised under Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. and for reference, the relevant part of the same reads as under:-
“267. Power to require attendance of prisoners.
(1) Whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a Criminal Court-
(a) that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for answering to a charge of an offence, or for the purpose of any proceedings against him, or
(b) that it is necessary for the ends of justice to examine such person as a witness, the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for answering to the charge or for the purpose of such proceeding or, as the case may be, for giving evidence.”
8. A perusal of the aforesaid extract, inter alia, reveals that whenever, in the course of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, it appears to a criminal Court that a person confined or detained in a prison should be brought before the Court for the purpose of any proceedings against him, the Court may make an order requiring the officer in charge of the prison to produce such person before the Court for the purpose of such proceeding.
9. Also noteworthy that provisions of Section 267 Cr.P.C. came up for consideration before Hon’ble Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court, reported as “2005 SCC OnLine Raj 317”, and the followin
