ORDER:

The Criminal Petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘the CrPC’) is filed seeking to quash the notice dated 25.10.2023 issued by 3rd respondent under Section 160 Cr.P.C in Crime No.213 of 2023 of Kakinada I Town Police Station, Kakinada District to the petitioner/A2 to attend before the law order Police Station, Kakinada in the said crime.

2. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice issued by 3rd respondent is illegal in the sense that the petitioner is not resident within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station of 3rd respondent or its adjoining police station, and therefore, the impugned notice is not in accordance with the limitations provided under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C.

4. Sri Sainath, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the bar of territorial jurisdiction of the police Station to issue notice to any person is not limited and the proviso deals only with male under the age of 15 years or male person above the age of 65 years and woman, and therefore the impugned notice is legal.

5. For the purpose of better appreciation the provision under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C with its proviso is noted herein bellow:

"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 sixty-five 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) xx xxx xxx"

6. A plain reading of the above the provision makes it clear the limitation of territorial jurisdiction is applicable to any person including the persons who are covered by the proviso to it. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents is not valid. It is made clear that the Investigating Officer can issue notice to any person who is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the police station of that Investigating Officer and its adjoined police station but not beyond that, subject to the limitations in the proviso. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner/A2 a resident of Mumbai, Maharastra State and he is not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the 3rd respondent or its adjoining police station. Therefore, the notice is illegal as the same is not in accordance with Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. As such, the same needs to be set aside. However, it does not preclude the Investigating Officer to issue a notice afresh following the procedure under Section 160 to 162 Cr.P.C.

7. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the petition is not maintainable and has become infructuous, since the date is mentioned in the notice had expired. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition was filed after the expiry of the time stipulated in the notice and still the police are entitled to investigate the case as per law, and therefore, it is required to decide the validity of the notice issued.

8. Though the purpose mentioned in the notice had expired, since the police are still entitled to give notice afresh, unless the legality of the impugned notice is decided, there is chance of repeating issue of the same kind and as such, this Court is of the view that the legality of the impugned notice is to be examined.

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscella