Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Rajarishi vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 13 July, 2022

Author: N.Sathish Kumar

Bench: N.Sathish Kumar

                                                                                Crl.OP.No.16226 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 13.07.2022

                                                     CORAM

                          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

                                           Crl.O.P.No.16226 of 2022 and
                                             Crl.M.P.No.9286 of 2022


               1. Rajarishi
               2. Murugananda
               3. Kanageswari
               4. Narmadha                                                     ... Petitioners


                                                      Vs.


               1. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by
                  The Inspector of Police,
                  All Women Police Station,
                  Thudiyar, Coimbatore – 641 034.

               2. Nagasundaram                                                 ... Respondents


               PRAYER: This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to

               call for the records in relation to the summons dated 20.05.2022 on the file of the

               Respondent Police and quash the same.



               1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                     Crl.OP.No.16226 of 2022



                                   For Petitioner          : Mr.V.P.Raman

                                   For Respondents         : Mr.E.Raj Thilak
                                                             Additional Public Prosecutor


                                                         ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the summons issued under section 160 and 91 of Cr.P.C. dated 20.05.2022 to the petitioner, who is already made an accused in similar set of allegations in Crime No.5 of 2021.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the summons under sections 160 cannot be issued to the accused and it can be issued to the persons who have acquaintance with the facts of the case. It is his further submission that the First Information Report registered in Crime No.5 of 2021 is also registered with similar allegations which has already been stayed by this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.20059, 20093 and 20631 of 2021. Hence, submitted that the summons issued has to be quashed.

2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16226 of 2022

3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent submitted that the summon has been issued only to enquire the petitioners.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents.

5. On a perusal of the summons, it is seen that the summons have issued under sections 160 and 91 of Cr.P.C. It is relevant to note that summons can be issued under section 160 of Cr.P.C. only to the witness or any person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Therefore, once a person is already arrayed as an accused under similar issue, summons cannot be issued under section 160 of Cr.P.C. The above legal preposition has been settled by the Apex Court in State vs NMT Joy Immaculate reported in AIR 2004 SC 2282 which has been followed by this Court in Prakash Transports Vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2004 [1] CTC 130 and the Order of this Court in Mohammed Rafi Vs. State and another in Crl.O.P.No.10929 of 2019 dated 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16226 of 2022 04.06.2019, wherein it has been categorically held that if no crime is registered in terms of Section 154 Cr.P.C., no summons can be issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The above preposition is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Even in this case, summons have been issued to the petitioner, who is arrayed as an accused in a similar case. In such view of the matter, summons issued to the petitioner under section 160 and also under section 91 Cr.P.C. has to be quashed.

6. In such view of the matter, it is open to the first respondent to issue proper notice under section 41 A Cr.P.C., if they want to examine the petitioner as a witness, since scope of Section 41A Cr.P.C. is wide rather than the Section 160 of Cr.P.C. When there is no complaint has been registered, notice can be issued under section 41A Cr.P.C., even beyond jurisdiction of the police station. If any notice under section 41A of Cr.P.C. is issued to the petitioner for enquiry, the petitioner is bound to appear and co-operate with the enquiry. Since, similar allegations have already been pressed into service, the said aspect has to be taken into consideration by the respondent.

4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16226 of 2022

7. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the summons issued to the petitioner under sections 160 and 91 of Cr.P.C. is quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

13.07.2022 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order vrc To

1.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Thudiyar, Coimbatore – 641 034.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.16226 of 2022 N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.

vrc Crl.O.P.No.16226 of 2022 13.07.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis