SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 16439

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.MALA, J
Mohamed Ismail – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI-SC-1 – Respondent
Crl.OP.(MD).No.4467/2026 & Crl.MP.(MD).No.4734/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Venkatesan
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Spl.PP [CBI]

The Court upheld the legality of a summons issued for enquiry in a criminal case despite the appellant's claims of illegality.

Headnote:The judgment discusses the legality of a summons issued under Section 528 of BNSS. The petitioner, claiming the summons illegal, was directed to attend an enquiry related to a criminal case. The Court, after careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, found no grounds to quash the summons, highlighting the immediacy of the enquiry. The direction was therefore affirmed to have the petitioner present for the enquiry.

Table of Content
1. legitimacy of the summons and the need for appearance in enquiry. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. assessment of grounds for quashing the summons and requirements for the enquiry. (Para 4 , 5)
3. court's directive for the petitioner to appear as required for the enquiry. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)

ORDER

(1)The petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the summons dated

10.02.2026, issued by the respondent herein.

(2)The petitioner was issued with Summons on 10.02.2026 to appear before the respondent for an enquiry in connection with RC-02[S]2025-CBI.1, New Delhi, dated 18.03.2025, for the offences under Sections 120-B , 170, 419 and 420 of IPC [registered by CBI-SC.1, New Delhi], against one Praveen Kumar Tigga and Shekhar @ Shekhar Mehrol.

(3)The petitioner in his affidavit, stated that he received the summons on

17.02.2026, for an enquiry on the same day. The petitioner further stated that therefore the summons was illegal and without application of mind and the petitioner, therefore prayed for quashing the same.

(4)Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor [CBI] and perused the materials placed on record.

(5)From the perusal of the records, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is required to be enquired into with reference to the aforementioned case and therefore, this Court finds that the petitioner has not made out any ground for quashing the summons. In any event, the petitioner received the summons on the very day, the enquiry was scheduled.

(6)The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a date may be fixed for his attendance in the enquiry.

(7)In view of the above submission and under the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent on 11.03.2026 for enquiry in connection with RC-02[S]2025-

CBI.1.

(8)The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

Consequently, connected Original Petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top