Madhya Pradesh High Court
Simran Narang vs The State Of Utter Pradesh on 13 August, 2024
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
1 WP-5197-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 13th OF AUGUST, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 5197 of 2024
SIMRAN NARANG
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTER PRADESH
Appearance:
Ms. Neha Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
ORDER
Both the parties heard.
02. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the impugned notice dated 16.02.2024 issued under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) directing appearance of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer of Police Station: Karwi Kotwali Nagar, Chitrakoot (Uttar Pradesh).
03. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.02.2024, somehow the fire crackers kept at the site caught fire and an explosion took place. Consequently, four persons were badly injured and later on, two persons has been died and other two injured were referred to the Prayagraj Hospital. Accordingly, offences under Section 286, 336, 338, 304 of IPC and Section 3(b) and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 has been registered at PS:
Karwi Kotwali Nagar, Chitrakoot (Uttar Pradesh).Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 14-08-2024 18:32:50
2 WP-5197-2024
04. The learned counsel for the petitioner's contention is that petitioner is the permanent resident of District Indore (M.P.). The respondent has issued a notice dated 16.02.2024 under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. Section 160 of Cr.P.C. does not empower the Police Officer to summon the petitioner to the State of Uttar Pradesh for recording of his evidence. Notice issued by the respondent is wholly without jurisdiction. Hence, she prays that the impugned notice dated 16.02.2024 under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. be quashed.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several judgments which are reproduced hereinbelow:
(i) Krishan Bans Bhadur and another V/s The State of Himachal Pradesh [Equivalent Citation " 1975 CRILJ 620].
(ii) Writ Petition No.4635 of 2017 decided on 15.11.2017.
(iii) Kailash Vijaywargiya V/s State of West Bengal and another in Writ Petition No.9779 of 2021.
06. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has issued a notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. to the present petitioner dictating him to remain present before him at Chitrakoot (U.P.) on 19.02.2024. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this petition.
07. Perused the notice issued under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. Section 160 of Cr.P.C. Section 160 of Cr.P.C. authorise a Police Officer making an investigation to require the attendance before himself of any person, who appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. The intention of the Legislature seems to have been only to provide a facility for obtaining Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 14-08-2024 18:32:50 3 WP-5197-2024 evidence. The Divisional Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Anirudh S. Bhagat V/s Ramnivas [Meena 2005 CRI. L. J. 3346 ] in para 5 has held as under:
''5. As regards the summonses issued prior to 14th September, 2004 are concerned, the question of entertaining the petition at this stage does not arise at all. It is a matter of record that the petitioner had challenged the summons dated 7th October. 2003 in Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2004. While disposing of the said writ petition, the petitioner was specifically required to attend the police station on 13th and 14th September, 2004 in the office of the respondent at Daman in answer to the said summons in relation to the concerned investigation. It is also a matter of record that the petitioner did attend the office of the respondent for recording his statement in terms of the said summons and the order passed by this Court on 31st August, 2004. Being so, the challenge to the summonses issued prior to 31st August, 2004 cannot be subject matter of a fresh petition. If at all the petitioner had any grievance in relation to any summons issued prior to 31st August 2004 it was necessary for the petitioner to challenge or make grievance about the same while dis- posing the said Writ Petition No. 1085 of 2004, which was disposed of on 31st Au- gust, 2004. The petitioner having not made any grievance in relation to those summonses and on the contrary, having invited the order dated 31st August, 2003 and appeared before the police authorities on 13th and 14th September, 2004, it is too late for the petitioner to challenge those summonses at this stage. Besides, the petitioner having appeared before the authority in pursuance of the summons and the order of this Court dated 31-8-2004, any grievance regarding the summons issued prior to 31-8-2004 to be held as stale one and obviously the challenge to the summonses issued prior to 31st August, 2004 being merely of academic to be illegal interest, no adjudication in that regard is called for nor any order of this Court is warranted.''
08. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kailash Vijaywargiya (supra) and Writ Petition No.4635 of 2017 and the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Krishan Bans Bhadur and another (supra), but all the citations preferred by the petitioner are related with the Single Bench decision. But the judgment of the Bombay High Court in case of Anirudh S. Bhagat (supra) has been delivered by the Divisional Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 14-08-2024 18:32:50
4 WP-5197-2024 Bench, therefore, the judgment of the Divisional Bench prevails over the judgment of the Single Bench. In the case of Anirudh S. Bhagat (supra), the case of Krishan Bans Bhadur and another (supra) has been discussed as under :
''10. In Krishan Bans' case, the criminal proceedings initiated in terms of S. 174 of Indian Penal Code were sought to be quashed. Those proceedings were initiated on account of failure to comply with the summons issued by the Investigating Officer under S. 160 of the Code. The facts of the case revealed from the decision disclose that an order was issued under S. 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to Krishan Bans and others requiring them to present themselves at Police Station, Chhota Simla on October 1.
1973 in connection with the investigation of a case. The order was served upon them at New Delhi on 28th September, 1973. The petitioners could not attend the police station in compliance with the order. Consequently a challan was entered by the Assistant Public Prosecutor against the peti- tioners in respect of an offence under S. 174 of the Indian Penal Code. Summonses were issued to the petitioners which were sought to be challenged before the learned single Judge of Himachal Pradesh High Court. It was held by the learned single Judge that "From the record of the present case it is apparent that when the orders under S. 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were is- sued the petitioners were not within the lim- its of the police station of the police officer issuing the order of any adjoining station. The address of petitioners mentioned in the order indicates that they were present at New Delhi. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that they were in Simla at all. Ex-facie, the order under S. 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is without jurisdiction. The order did not proceed from a public servant legally competent as such public servant to issue it. Accordingly, no offence can be said to have been committed within the purview of S. 174 of the Indian Penal Code." Apparently decision is not on the point sought to be argued before this Court. It was on the point that in order to investigate in relation to the offence under S. 174 of 1.P.C.. the order, non-compliance of which is alleged, must be issued by a legally competent authority to issue the order and in that case it was not so issued and that therefore the proceedings under S. 174 were not maintainable. Whether the notice can be issued to a person residing or carrying on business beyond the limits of the police station or any adjoining station was not the subject-matter of decision in the said case but the matter proceeded on the assumption that such officer had no jurisdiction to issue a notice to a person beyond the limits of his own police station or any adjoining police station. Needless to remind that it is well settled principle of law that a decision is what it C decides and not what may follow from it. The ratio of the decision has to be understood by referring to the facts of the case and the point considered and decided therein.''
09. In the case of Anirudh S. Bhagat (supra), Divisional Bench of Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 14-08-2024 18:32:50 5 WP-5197-2024 Bombay High has held that summons requiring petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer alongwith any particular document under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. is not illegal. On the basis of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that two persons died in an explosion of fire crackers and accordingly an offence under Section 286, 336, 338, 304 of IPC and Section 3(b) and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 has been registered. Being so, Investigating Officer requires necessary cooperation from the petitioner in the matter of collecting information pertaining to the explosion of the fire crackers, it cannot be cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the Investigation Officer is acting beyond his power or authority in any manner. Section 160 of Cr.P.C. does not present the Police Officer to summon the person even though at the time of issuance of the summons, the person is found to be either residing or carrying business beyond the territorial limits of the police station to which the Investigation Officer is attached to, therefore, there is no merit in the grievance of the petitioner.
10. For the reasons stated above, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE Divyansh Signature Not Verified Signed by: DIVYANSH SHUKLA Signing time: 14-08-2024 18:32:50