ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records relating to summon dated 23.11.2022, C.No.P1/E3424913-

1903/chiefoffice/2022 issued by the second respondent and quash the same.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were issued a summons under Sections 91 & 160 Cr.P.C. by the second respondent, dated 23.11.2022 in C.No.P1/E3424913-1903/chiefoffice/2022 dated 28.10.2022, to appear before the second respondent on 26.11.2022 regarding the complaint lodged by Arunpriyan. Arunpriyan is the husband of the first petitioner. They were married on 08.03.2017 and have one male child. Arunpriyan harassed the first petitioner by demanding dowry and forcibly aborted two times and criminally intimidated the petitioner. On the basis of the complaint made by the first petitioner before the All Women Police Station – Dharapuram, a case in crime No.13 of 2022, for the offences under Sections 498 (A) & 506 (i) IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act, 2002 was registered. After investigation, final report was filed and the case was taken on file in C.C.No.253 of 2022, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, Tiruppur. In the said circumstances, summons issued by the second respondent is without any justification and against law. In the case of Benjamin Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and Ors. reported in (2019) 2 LW Crl 628, this Court held that summons under Section 160 Cr.P.C. cannot be issued without registration of FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. Therefore this petition.

3.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners produced the following orders:

(1) Prakash Transports Vs. The Inspector of Police in Crl.O.P.No.7018 of 2002, dated 22.10.2003.

(2) Soundara Rajan Vs. Deputy Superintending Police and Another reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 7307.

(3) S.Anand Nataraj Vs. State, Rep by the Inspector of Police and Another reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 14683.

(4) Madhusudhanan Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another reported in 2021 SCC Online Mad 9564.

(5) V.N.Pachaimuthu Vs. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, Villupuram and Ors. in W.P.No.19361 of 2011 dated

09.03.2012.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP & Ors. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, when preliminary enquiry is conducted in certain cases, police can issue summons for the appearance of the accused and the witnesses for conducting the preliminary enquiry and that cannot be faulted with. In support of his submissions, he produced the order passed in Crl.O.P.No.28049 of 2022 dated 07.12.2022 (S.Karthikeyan Vs. State Rep by The Superintendent of Police, District Police Office, Thiruvarur, Thiruvarur District – 610 004 and two ors).

5.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

6.Section 91 Cr.P.C. comes under Chapter VII. This Chapter deals with processes to compel the production of things. Section 160 Cr.P.C. comes under Chapter XII. This Chapter deals with Information to the police and their powers to investigate. Section 91 reads as follows:

91. Summons to produce document or other thing (1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of at