Back
2014 Supreme(MP) 584
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
S.C. Sharma, J.
Manish v. State of M.P. and another
Writ Petition No.13230 of 2013 (Indore); Decided on 25.11.2014
Headnote:Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.160 and 161 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 -- offence registered under -- notices issued to petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 at Mumbai -- challenged in this petition -- petitioner cannot be called to Mumbai in peculiar facts and circumstances of case -- summons issued by respondent No.2 are quashed.
Held : The petitioner cannot be called to Mumbai in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The respondent No.2 in case requires the statement of petitioner, he is certainly free to visit Indore and to record the statement of the petitioner keeping in view the statutory provisions as contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The summons dated 29.10.2013 and 2.11.2013 are quashed. 2010 Cr.LJ 56 and 2002 Cr.LJ 1585 discussed. 2005 Cr.LJ 334 referred to.
naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 160 rFkk 161 && naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 420] 467] 468] 471 rFkk 34 && ds v/khu vijk/k jftLVªhd`r && ;kph dks izR;FkhZ Ø-2 eqacbZ ds le{k mifLFkr gksus ds fy, lwpuk,a tkjh dh xbZ && bl ;kfpdk es vk{ksfir && ekeys ds fof’k”V rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;kph dks eqacbZ ugha cqyk;k tk ldrk && izR;FkhZ Ø-2 }kjk tkjh leu vfHk[kafM+r fd, x,A
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ekeys ds fof’k”V rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa es ;kph dks eqacbZ ugh cqyk;k tk ldrkA izR;FkhZ Ø-2 }kjk ;kph ds vfHkdFkuksa dh vko’;drk gS rks og fuf’pr :Ik ls bankSj vkus ds fy, rFkk ;kph ds vfHkdFku vfHkfyf[kr djus ds fy,] naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 ds v/khu varfoZ”V dkuwuh mica/kks dks /;ku es j[krs gq, Lora= gSA leu fnukad 29-10-2013 rFkk 2-11-2013 vfHk[kafM+r fd, tkrs gSA 2010 lh vkj ,y ts 56 rFkk 2002 lhvkj ,y ts 1585 foosfprA 2005 lhvkj ,y ts 334 fufnZ”VA
1. Parties through their counsel.
2. The present writ petition has been filed against the summons issued under section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 dated 29.10.2013 and 2.11.2013 by the Senior Inspector of police Economic Offence Singh, Unit III, Crime Branch, CID Police Office, Compound Erawford Marg, Mumbai.
3. The facts of the case reveal that some criminal case has been registered against certain individuals for the offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of IPC and notices have been issued under section 160 of CrPC to the present petitioner to appear before the respondent No.2 at Mumbai.
4. Shri Sethi, learned sernior counsel at the outset has drawn the attention of this Court towards section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and his contention is that the witness cannot be called to Mumbai in light of the statutory provisions of law. To buttress his argument, he has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Gauhati High Court in thge case of M/s. Pusma Investment Pvt.Ltd. and others v. State of Meghalaya and others [2010 Cr.LJ 56].
5. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 before this Court that the petitioner as he is a witness can certainly be called to Mumbai for recording his statement and the notices have been issued in consonance with the statutory provisions as contained under section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The statutory provision governing the field as contained under section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under :
“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 ajoining 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 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.”
Paragraph 5 of the judgment delivered by the Gauhati High Court in the case of M/s. Pusma Investment Pvt.Ltd. (supra), reads as under :
“5. Section 160, CrPC authorizes a police officer making an investigation, by order in writing, (i) to require the attendance before himself, (ii) of any person, who from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and (iii) who is residing within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining police station. The expression “who being within the limits of his own” read with the words following it, namly, “or any adjoining station” can only mean the person, who is to be summoned, must reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation. So read, it becomes clear that such police officer making the investigation can enforce the attendance of a person acquainted with the facts and circumstances only if the latter resides within the limits of his own police station or adjoining station. If the person being summoned does not reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation or, at any rate, within the limits of the adjoining police station, it appears that such police officer cannot enforce his attendance even though he may be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case being investigated by him. The proviso to sub-section (1) of section 160 says that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to a
