Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar & Anr vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr on 6 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 740 of 2023 Reserved on: 26.07.2024 .
Date of Decision: 06.08.2024
Satish Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arjun Lall, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate
General.
Rakesh Kainthla, Judge
The present petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 18.07.2023 issued under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. served upon petitioner No.1 (Annexure P-6) at Ludhiana to appear in the Police Station Nalagarh on 20.07.2023 and give information regarding F.I.R.
No. 100 of 2022, dated 01.04.2022. It has been asserted that the petitioners are permanent residents of Ludhiana. F.I.R. No. 100 of 2022 was registered against the brother of petitioner No. 1 and uncle 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) of petitioner No.2 at the instance of informant-Harbans Lal. The police served a notice upon petitioner No.1 under Section 160 of Cr.
.
P.C. dated 18.07.2023, asking the petitioners to join the investigation.
This notice is beyond the jurisdiction as Section 160 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked within the local limit of jurisdiction of Station House Officer, Nalagarh or the adjoining the Police Station. The police are harassing the petitioners by serving a notice upon petitioner No.1. He r to apprehends his arrest in the present F.I.R. in the garb of notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the notice be quashed.
2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply admitting that F.I.R. No.100 of 2022 dated 01.04.2022 was registered at Police Station Nalagarh, H.P. It was also admitted that notices were served upon the petitioners. It was asserted that the petitioners were aware of the registration of the F.I.R. and they were avoid to join the investigation.
The police tried to obtain their correct addresses and found that there were variations in the addresses of the petitioners. The police came to know about the correct address of petitioner No.1 from reliable sources and the notice was served upon him with the help of local police. Petitioner No.1 assured that he would join the investigation but he failed to join the investigation on 20.07.2023. There is no ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) jurisdictional error in serving the notice. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
.
3 I have heard Mr. Arjun Lall, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State.
4. Mr. Arjun Lall, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 160 of Cr.P.C. empowers the SHO to serve the notice upon any person acquainted with the facts of the case residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the police officer or in the adjoining area; such notice cannot be served upon a resident of a different State. He relied upon the judgments in Krishan Bans Bahadur and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1975 Cri LJ 620, Kulvinder Singh Kohli vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. W.P. (CRL) 611/2022, decided on 10.06.2022 and Jamshed Adil Khan & Anr. Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, W.P. (CRL) 976/2022, decided on 08.07.2022 in support of his submission.
5. Ms Ayushi Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State submitted that the word 'adjoining Police Station' cannot be construed restrictively and has to be given wide interpretation. She relied upon the judgments of Dr Rajendra B. Lal ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) son of Late Behari vs State of Uttar Pradesh Criminal Miscellaneous Petition no. 11882 of 2005, decided on 26th April 2006 and .
Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 32906 and 44022 of 2022 decided on 18th October 2022 in support of her submission.
6. I have given considerable thought to the submission made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.
7. Section 160 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: -
"160. Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.
(1) Any police officer, making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required:
Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides. (2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-
section (1) at any place other than his residence."
8. This provision was considered by this Court in Krishan Bans Bhadur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1974 SCC OnLine HP 39: 1975 Cri LJ 620 and it was held that Section 160 of Cr.P.C. empowers a Police Officer making an investigation to require the attendance of ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) any person being within the limits of his own or adjoining Police Station to appear before himself. Where the person was residing .
outside the jurisdiction of the Police Officer, the person cannot be asked to attend under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. It was observed:-
"2. An order was issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requiring the petitioners to present themselves at Police Station Chhota Simla, District Simla on October 1, 1973, in connection with the investigation of a case.
3. The order was served on them at New Delhi on September 28, 1973. The petitioners were unable to attend the Police Station in compliance with the order. Consequently, a challan was entered by the Assistant Public Prosecutor in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Simla, against the petitioners in respect of an offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. Summons were issued to the petitioners and the case against them is pending before the said Chief Judicial Magistrate. The petitioners assail the validity of those proceedings.
4. It is evident that the petition must succeed. Clearly, the petitioners are not guilty of any non-compliance with the orders issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 160 empowers a police officer making an investigation to require the attendance before himself of any person "being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station" who from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case and Section 160 adds, such person must attend as so required From the record of the present case it is apparent that when the orders under S. 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were issued the petitioners were not within the limits of the police Station of the police officer issuing the order nor of any adjoining station. The address of the petitioners mentioned in the order indicates that they were present at New Delhi. There is no evidence whatever to show that they were in Simla at all. Ex facie, the order under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS
6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) 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 Section 174 of the Penal Code, 1860."
.
9. This judgment was followed by Orissa High Court in Sitaram Chayela vs. Officer in charge, Laxmisagar Police Station (25.06.1999 - ORIHC): MANU/OR/0330/1999 wherein it was observed:
"3. A perusal of the aforesaid provision 'clearly indicates that a police officer can require the attendance of any person being within the limits of his own or in adjoining station. Since noncompliance with the direction under Section 160 may amount to an offence punishable under Section 174, I.P.C., the provisions contained in Section 160, Code of Criminal Procedure. are to be construed strictly. It is quite evident that Section 160 does not empower a police officer to require the presence of any person unless such person is within the limits of the police station concerned or of any adjoining police station.
4. In the decision reported in MANU/HP/0025/1974: 1975 Cri. L.J. 620 (Krishan Dans Bhadur and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh), it was held that where a notice was issued against a person, not within the jurisdiction of the police station, nor the adjoining police station, noncompliance- with such order does not amount to commission of any offence, if any order is passed under Section 160. It is evident that if notice under Section 160, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is issued against any person not within the limits of a police station or of an adjoining police station, such notice can be said to be without jurisdiction and the notice is free to ignore such illegal notice.
5. The learned Counsel for the State, however, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in MANU/SC/0158/1970:
A.I.R. 1971 SC 520 (P. Sirajuddin etc. v. State of Madras etc.) and contended that the police have the authority under Section 160 to require the presence of any person for examination. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court only discussed in general the ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) various powers available to an Investigating Officer while investigating an offence and in that context, it was stated in a general way that an Investigating Officer has the authority to require the presence of any person for examination. The .
meaning of the expression"... of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station..." was not under consideration in the said case and from the general observations made in the Supreme Court decision, it cannot be said that the police officer had the authority to require the presence of any person by issuing notice under Section 160 even though such person is not within the jurisdiction of the police station, or the jurisdiction of the adjoining police station.
6. In the present case, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Professor Para in Cuttack Town is not within the jurisdiction of Laxmisagar Police Station of Bhubaneswar, nor is it within the jurisdiction of any adjoining police station. The notice under Section 160, Code of Criminal Procedure is thus ex facie illegal and the Petitioner need not comply with such notice."
10. Gauhati High Court also took a similar view in Pusma Investment (P.) Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya, 2009 SCC OnLine Gau 107:
(2010) 1 Gau LR 74: 2010 Cri LJ 56 : (2010) 1 E Cr N 799 : (2010) 3 CCR 218 wherein it was observed:
"5. Section 160, Cr. P.C. authorizes a police officer making an investigation, by order in writing, (i) to require the attendance before himself, (ii) of any person, who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and (iii) who is residing within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining police station. The expression "who being within the limits of his own" read with the words following it, namely, "or any adjoining station"
can only mean the person, who is to be summoned, must reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation. So read, it becomes clear that such ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) police officer making the investigation can enforce the attendance of a person acquainted with the facts and circumstances only if the latter resides within the limits of his own police station or adjoining station. If the person being .
summoned does not reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation or, at any rate, within the limits of the adjoining police station, it appears that such police officer cannot enforce his attendance even though he may be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case being investigated by him. The proviso to sub- section (1) of section 160 says that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides. Then, sub-section (2) of section 160 further provides that the State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence. A conjoint reading of both the sub-sections and the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 160 plainly indicate, firstly, that the person to be summoned by the officer making the investigation must reside within the local limits of his own police station or within the adjoining area, secondly, that in the case of a male person under the age of fifteen years or woman, their attendance cannot be enforced at any place other than their residence even if they reside within the limits of the police station of the police officer making the investigation or within the limits of the adjoining police station and, thirdly, that reasonable expenses of every person other than a male person under the age of fifteen years or woman attending such requisition at any place within the limits of the police station of the officer making the investigation or the adjoining police station shall have to be paid by the concerned police officer as per rules framed by the State Government in this behalf. If the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that under section 160, the police officer making the investigation is not disabled from requiring the attendance of a witness residing beyond the local limits of his police station or adjoining station, is accepted, that will amount to ignoring the words "being within the limits of his own or any adjoining ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) station". In my opinion, such an interpretation is against all canons of interpretation. It is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they can have appropriate application .
in circumstances conceivably within the contemplation of the statute (see Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Aretbinda Bose, (1952) 2 SCC 237: AIR 1952 SC 369). "In the interpretation of statutes", observed DAS GUPTA, J. in, J.K. Cotton spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 1170 (at page 1174), "the courts presume that the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect". The Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or to say anything in vain and a construction which attributes redundancy to the Legislature will not be accepted except for compelling reasons. When the language of section 160 is plain and unambiguous, this court cannot plunge headlong into a discussion of the reason which motivated the Legislature into enacting this provision and take into consideration the hardship and inconvenience being caused to the investigating agency if they are not allowed to enforce the attendance of witnesses residing beyond their police station or an adjoining police station. The rule of purposive construction cannot also be invoked in this provision. The correct principle, according to the learned author, G.P. Singh, J., is that after the words have been construed in the context and it is found that the language is capable of bearing only one construction, the rule in Heydon's case ceases to be controlling and gives way to the plain meaning rule. But the rule cannot be used to "the length of applying unnatural meanings to familiar words or of so stretching the language that its former shape is transformed into something which is not only significantly different but has a name of its own especially when "the language has no evident ambiguity or uncertainty about it. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th ed. pp. 119-120). In the view that I have taken, the impugned notices are ultra vires the provisions of section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cannot be sustained in law. I have carefully gone through the case Antrudha S. Bhagat (supra) cited by the learned Additional Advocate General, but, with respect, I find myself unable to ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) agree with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court for the reasons already stated in the foregoing."
11. A similar view was taken in Kulvinder Singh Kohli v. State .
(NCT of Delhi), (2022) 4 HCC (Del) 137: 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1766 wherein it was observed:
32. The provision says that a police officer making an investigation may require attendance of "any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station", thereby, clearly and unequivocally setting limits to the jurisdiction within which the police officer is permitted to act. For this point, reference is also made to Directorate of Enforcement v. State of W.B. [Directorate of Enforcement v. State of W.B., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5603], wherein while referring to Section 160CrPC, a Coordinate Bench of this Court noted as under :
"27. By a mere reading of the said provisions, it becomes apparent that the power of the police officer to require the attendance of a witness is circumscribed by the words 'within the limits of his own or any adjoining station'. It is to be noted that if the said power was in the nature of PAN-India power, as has been sought to be argued by the respondents, there was no reason for the legislature to use the terminology quoted above. To the contrary, if the same was the intention of the legislature, the legislature would have clearly stated so and bestowed unlimited jurisdiction on the police officer by using terminology in the nature of 'anywhere in the country' or even 'anywhere within the State'. The clear departure of the legislature and the use of the terms 'within the limits of his own or any adjoining station' points towards a legislative intention to limit the jurisdiction in this regard. The reliance placed by the respondents in this regard on the judgment in Anant Brahmachari v. Union of India [Anant Brahmachari v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1680], may not further the case of the ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) respondents as clearly, the said judgment was dealing with a separate statutory set-up in the nature of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 which would have a strong bearing on the issue as the said agency has .
jurisdiction across the country. Further, this Court in Ravinder Singh v. State [Ravinder Singh v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4783] vide order dated 27-7-2010, has held as under:
'The section does not need the help of dictionaries or other judgments for understanding its meaning when there is no ambiguity and it is so clearly written either within his own police station or in the adjoining police station. I, therefore, consider that summons issued to the petitioner under Section 160CrPC in Delhi, which is not adjoining the police station of Rewari is without jurisdiction and the r notice is, therefore, quashed.'
28. I am, therefore, prima facie inclined to agree with the dictum in Ravinder Singh case [Ravinder Singh v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4783]. Therefore, on the issue of the competence of the respondents to issue the impugned notices, a serious challenge has been presented by the petitioners, which prima facie, seems to have considerable merit. It may also be noted that the said issue goes to the root of the matter and if the respondents lack jurisdiction itself to issue the impugned notices, the entire case of the respondents falls."
33. In the instant matter between the parties before this Court, the impugned summons/notices were issued by the authority concerned/Respondent 3 from District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, whereas, the petitioner alleges that he is a resident of J 1/162 E, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi -- 110 027. Even a perusal of the impugned summons/notice reveals that the notice under Section 160CrPC was issued to the petitioner at his correspondence address at House No. 651, Sector 15, Gurugram, Haryana. Both these addresses are evidently outside and beyond the territorial limits of the police station concerned SAS Nagar. The bar of jurisdiction under Section 160CrPC is indisputably ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) applicable to the instant matter and in such a case, the notice issued can rightly be said to be issued without jurisdiction."
12. This position was reiterated in Jamshed Adil Khan v. State .
(UT of J&K), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4870 and it was held:
"6. From the plain reading of the sub-section (1) of Section 160 Cr. P.C., it is evident that for the purposes of investigation, a police officer can require the attendance of a person situated within the limits of his own police station or that of the adjoining police station and not someone who is situated beyond the said territorial limits. A reference with benefit may be made here to the judgment dated 27.07.2010 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in a similar case in Ravinder Singh v. State W.P. (Crl.) No. 971/2010. In that case, while quashing the summons, this court held that:
"Reading of this Section makes it abundantly clear that notice under Section 160 Cr. P.C. can be issued by an Investigating Officer or the police person concerned to a person residing within his own jurisdiction and at the most in the adjoining police station surrounding that police station. There may be 10 police stations adjoining that police station....
The Section does not need the help of dictionaries or other judgments for understanding its meaning when there is no ambiguity and it is so clearly written either within his own police station or in the adjoining police station. I, therefore, consider that summons issued to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P. C in Delhi. which is not adjoining the police station of Rewari is without jurisdiction and the notice is. therefore. quashed."
7. The above view was reiterated by another bench of this court in Directorate of Enforcement v. State of West Bengal [WP(Crl) No. 1768/2021], wherein it was observed in para 27 as under: --
"27. By a mere reading of the said provisions, it becomes apparent that the power of the Police Officer to require the attendance of a witness is circumscribed by the words "within ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) the limits of his own or any adjoining station". It is to be noted that if the said power was in the nature of pan-India power, as has been sought to be argued by the respondents, there was no reason for the Legislature to use the terminology quoted above.
.
To the contrary, if the same was the intention of the Legislature, the Legislature would have clearly stated so and bestowed unlimited jurisdiction on the Police Officer by using terminology in the nature of "anywhere in the country" or even "anywhere within the State". The clear departure of the Legislature and the use of the terms "within the limits of his own or any adjoining station" points towards a legislative intention to limit the jurisdiction in this regard. .."
8. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 have pleaded that they are residents of Delhi and have filed in sealed cover, their affidavits disclosing their addresses along with copy of their respective Aadhar cards. Ld. counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners' addresses be not revealed on record, as the petitioners apprehend a threat to their life on account of having carried out a journalistic investigation in other sensitive matters in Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioners have also submitted that even the aforesaid summons were addressed to them at the office of TV Today Network, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
9. Aforesaid sealed envelopes were opened and the affidavits and copies of Aadhar Cards of the petitioners were perused.
From the same, I am satisfied that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are residents of Delhi. Summons u/s 160 Cr. P.C. were also addressed to the petitioners at Film City, Sector-16 A, Noida.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioners being residents of Delhi and having their office addresses of Noida, U.P, could not have been summoned under Section 160 Cr. P.C. by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Pampore, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The summons issued to them were without jurisdiction and are, therefore, quashed. However, this shall not come in the way of the investigating agency to examine the petitioners as per law at Delhi, if so required. Nor shall quashing of the impugned summon would have any reflection on the merits of the case."
::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 )
13. A similar view was taken in Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya Satynarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2402 .
wherein it was observed:
"10. A reading of clause (1) of Section 160 Cr.P.C. makes it manifest that any police officer, making an investigation by order in writing, requires the attendance of any person before him, who is within the limits of his own police station or any adjoining station and who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and such person shall attend before him as required by the said police officer. So, the power of the police officer to summon a person to appear before him for the purpose of investigation in connection with a crime registered is circumscribed by restricting his power only to summon a person who is residing within the limits of his police station or residing within the limits of the adjoining station...."
14. Jharkhand High Court also took a similar view in Shyam Kishore Shandilya v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1730 and observed:
"5. Looking into the above proviso it is crystal clear that the power of the police officer to require the attendance of a witness is within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. In the case in hand, petitioner no. 1 is aged about 72 years and he is an ailing person residing in Patna."
15. However, Allahabad High Court held in Rajendra B. Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (26.04.2006 - ALLHC):
MANU/UP/0754/2006 that the power under section 160 of CrPC cannot be confined to the limits of territorial jurisdiction. It was observed:::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS
15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) "5. From the plain reading of such a section, it appears to us that the cardinal principle of the section is the requirement of attendance of the person within the jurisdiction mentioned therein. In the present case requirement of attendance arose .
within the jurisdiction of the appropriate police station in the State of Gujarat. When such a requirement arises within the police station therein, any police officer can issue appropriate notice from there requiring the attendance of any person even if he is staying outside the jurisdiction. Such a section does not say to whom the notice of interrogation will be served, he has to be a resident of such jurisdiction. Therefore, receiving notice outside the jurisdiction of the appropriate police authority cannot give any cause of action for not attending there as per the requirement. If this Court holds that a police authority cannot issue any notice to any person, who does not stay within his jurisdiction or within the adjoining jurisdiction of the station, it will lead to an absurd proposition of law. No police officer can be able to investigate the crime freely. On the other hand, it is a fundamental duty of a citizen to co-operate with the police in respect of an inquiry and investigation to bring out the truth. The petitioner/s contended that as because one other person was called for interrogation and then arrested, he/they are apprehensive about such an arrest. According to us, such apprehension cannot give the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the offence committed outside. Moreover, happening to someone in another case cannot be the basis of the jurisdiction in the present case." (Emphasis supplied)
16. Bombay High Court also held in Anirudha S. Bhagat v.
Ramnwas Meena, 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 491: (2005) 4 Mah LJ 41: (2006) 37 AIC 258: (2006) 54 ACC (Sum 12) 4: 2005 Cri LJ 3346: (2005) 2 Bom CR (Cri) 894 that the power under Section 160 of CrPC can be exercised over a person not residing within the territorial limits of police station's jurisdiction.
::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS16 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) "11. As regards section 160 is concerned undoubtedly it states that summons can be issued to any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. We are concerned here with the main body of section 160. We are not dealing with .
the proviso thereto. The said provision of law nowhere states that such a person must be within the limits of such police station or adjoining police station at the time of issuance of the summons but it specifically refers to the fact that such summons can be issued to any person for the purpose of gathering the information from such person, he being acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. Obviously, the provision is made in that regard in order to enable the Investigating Officer to collect the required information from every person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case in respect of which the investigation is being carried out. At the same time, it is also to be noted that under section 160(2) it is provided that the State Government may, by rules made in that behalf, provide for payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence. In other words, a person residing at one place can be required to appear at a different place and any expenditure incurred by such person for such attendance can be reimbursed in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government in that regard. This apparently discloses the intention of the legislature to make necessary provisions which can enable the Investigating Officer to secure the attendance of a person in the Police Station or at any other place required by the Investigating Officer, albeit the person must be one who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The very purpose of the provision being to enable the Investigating Officer to gather the information from whomsoever is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case in relation to which the investigation is carried out, the provision of law cannot be interpreted in a manner which will defeat the very purpose for which the provision is introduced in the said Code. If the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is accepted, it will virtually result in reading down the provision of section 160 in the manner in which it nowhere ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 17 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) states that at the time of issuance of the summons, the person against whom the summons is issued has necessarily be a resident or a person carrying on his business within the limits of the local police station or that he should be from the .
territorial limits of the adjoining police station. Once it is revealed to the Investigating Officer that at the relevant time, the person had occasion to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case in respect of an offence which had occurred or he had been within the territorial limits of the police station to which the police officer is attached to or in the territorial limits of the adjoining police station, nothing prevents the police officer to summon the person even though at the time of issuance of the summon, 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. Any other interpretation of section 160 would defeat the very purpose of the provision of law comprised under the said section. Being so, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioner regarding the absence of territorial jurisdiction for the issuance of the summons by the Investigating Officer is to be rejected. The view that we are taking in the matter is very clear from the proviso to the section itself. The only exception made under the proviso is in relation to minors of a certain age and females." (Emphasis supplied)
17. Delhi High Court also held in Anant Brahmachari v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1680: ILR (2012) 3 Del 682 that the power under Section 160 of CrPC cannot be fettered by directing the police officer to only call the persons residing within his jurisdiction. It was observed:
"13. No doubt, different High Courts have taken different views that a Police Officer by an order in writing can require the attendance before himself of any person within the limits of his own or adjoining station, who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. When a Police officer is ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS
18 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) investigating an offence, he has to investigate all the facets thereof. The power of investigation cannot be fettered by directing a Police officer to be able to call only persons acquainted with the facts of the case who reside either under the jurisdiction of the Police station or .
adjoining thereto. Further, there can be no limit prescribed to an adjoining station. Section 160(1) Cr. P.C. does not restrict the power of a Police Officer to examine only a person who is residing within the limits of such Police Station or adjoining Police Station. The qualifying words are 'summons to a person who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case'. The purpose of the investigation is to collect material evidence. The same cannot be restricted by limiting the scope of Section 160(1) Cr. P.C. to persons who are residing within the limits of the said Police station or adjoining Police Station. The contention of the Petitioner is also fallacious on the count that in a case where statements of a number of witnesses or persons are required to be recorded who reside within jurisdictions of different Police Stations and are required to be confronted with each other to find out the true facts, the same would not be possible if they cannot be called to a Police Station beyond the jurisdiction in which they live or adjoining police station."
18. Thus, there is a divergence of opinion regarding the interpretation of Section 160 of CrPC. However, this Court is bound by the judgment of Krishan Bans Bahadur (supra) and respectfully holds that the police can only serve notice under Section 160 of CrPC upon a person residing within the limits of its jurisdiction or adjoining police station; hence, the notice served upon petitioner no. 1 at Ludhiana asking him to join investigation at Nalagarh is without jurisdiction.
19. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and notice dated 18.07.2023 served upon petitioner No.1 asking him to join the ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS 19 Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:6391 ) investigation at Nalagarh is quashed and set aside. However, it is expressly made clear that this order will not prevent the Police Officer .
from carrying out the investigation and interrogating the petitioner at Ludhiana, if otherwise permissible under the law.
20. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.
(Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 06th August, 2024 (ravinder) ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2024 20:36:31 :::CIS