PRESENT

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate Writ(s)/ Order(s)/direction(s) or a Writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside/quashing the summons dated 14.07.2022 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No.190 of 2021 as the same has been issued without any authority or force of law and the same is not in accordance with Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between India and Switzerland (MLAT) as the summons are laden with multiple discrepancies in critical details. Further prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 13.01.2023 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi issued non- bailable warrant of arrest against the writ petitioner and for issuance of Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) or a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Investigating Officer to strictly act in accordance with law and MLAT Procedure established and consequential reliefs.

3. The brief fact of the case is that Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.190 of 2021 was registered on the basis of the written report submitted by one Kishor Exports through Mr. Deepak Agarwal alleging that the owner of WINC and its employees have committed the offences punishable under Sections 419/ 420/467/468/471/474 of the Indian Penal Code. The undisputed fact remains that the writ petitioner is a permanent resident of Switzerland. The petitioner is alleged to be the owner of WINC. The Investigating Officer of the case of Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.190 of 2021 filed a petition on 14.07.2022 praying therein to issue a warrant of arrest against the writ petitioner and another. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, considering inter alia that the writ petitioner was residing outside the territory of India to afford him an opportunity of putting forth his contention in respect of the allegations made against him and for the purpose of collecting evidence during the course of investigation and also for the purpose of co-operation and to facilitate the investigation, issued the summons to the writ petitioner and requested the Under Secretary (Legal Cell), Internal Security-II Division, Ministry of Home Affairs with a request to serve summon in connection with Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.190 of 2021 but at the cause-title of the notice, the case number has erroneously been mentioned as “Complaint Case No.190 of 2021” instead of being “Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.190 of 2021”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner- Mr. Sinha draws attention of this Court towards Section 105(B)(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

which reads as under:-

“105-B. Assistance in securing transfer of persons.—

(1) Xxxxx (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code, if, in the course of an investigation or any inquiry into an offence, an application is made by the investigating officer or any officer superior in rank to the investigating officer that the attendance of a person who is in any place in a contracting State is required in connection with such investigation or inquiry and the Court is satisfied that such attendance is so required, it shall issue a summons or warrant, in duplicate, against the said person to such Court, Judge or Magistrate, in such form as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, to cause the same to be served or executed.”

and submits that as the said provision of law starts with a non-obstante clause so, the same overrides all other provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the undisputed fact is that Switzerland is a contracting State with India and the writ petitioner is at Switzerland. Since the object of issuing the summons was requiring attendance of the writ petitioner in connection with investigation of Ormanjhi P.S. Case No.190 of 2021, the proper procedure was for the Invest