Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
V.T. Lazar vs ~
cites
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 41 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
14. As far as the impugned notice is concerned, whether it is summons
under Section 160 Cr.P.C.or Notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. has not been
indicated. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed giving liberty to police to issue
notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C and to conduct preliminary enquiry as per the
guidelines set out in the judgment of the Apex Court in Lalithakumari's Case
(Supra).
State Rep. By Inspector Of Police & Ors vs N.M.T. Joy Immaculate on 5 May, 2004
9. On a careful perusal of the above provision, for issuance of summons the
same can be issued for attendance of witness who resides within the limit of the
police station jurisdiction or any adjoining station. Further on a perusal of the
Section makes it very clear that the issuance of the summons under Section 160
Cr.P.C. applies only to the cases of persons who appears to be acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case, who are only witness or possible witnesses.
Page 4 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14796 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.8201of 2022
Once the FIR has been registered as against the accused, summons cannot be
issued against the accused under Section 160 Cr.P.C.for requiring his attendance
for an accused person with a view to answering the charge made against him, as
held by the Apex Court in State vs NMT Joy Immaculate reported in AIR 2004
SC 2282 .
Preetham vs Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 31 August, 2021
In support of his submissions he also placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in V.N. Pachaimuthu vs. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram
[2012(3) CTC 291] and the order passed by this Court in Benjamin vs. The
Superintendent of Police [Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9821 of 2017 dated 05.09.2019]
and Preetham vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police and another
[ Crl.O.P.No.15000 of 2021 dated 31.08.2021] .
V.N.Pachaimuthu vs The Superintendent Of Police on 9 March, 2012
In a Crl.O.P.this Court is accepting the view of
the V.N. Pachaimuthu's case (supra) and quashed the summons with a liberty to
the police to proceed further with the case and deal with the complaint in
accordance with the guidelines given by the Honourable Apex Court in Lalitha
Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh [2013 (6) CTC 353].
Page 5 / 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.14796 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.8201of 2022
1