Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 402 (KER)

Biju v. State of Kerala

2000-08-03

K.A.MOHAMMED SHAFI

body2000
Judgment :- K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. This M.C. is filed by the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 210/2000 registered by the Kayamkulam Police alleging offences punishable under Ss.409 and 379 r/w. 34 of IPC to quash annexures- I and II notices issued by the learned Magistrate to them to appear before the investigating officer for interrogation regarding the case on 14.6.2000. 2. It is submitted that the petitioners had appeared before the Court and the learned Magistrate had granted bail to them. According to them, annexures- I and II notices issued by the learned Magistrate are absolutely illegal and unsustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. 4. In annexures- I and II notices issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer for interrogation, it is only stated that in order to question the petitioners and to elicit certain particulars with regard to the case, they are directed to appear before the investigating officer on 14.6.2000 since a report is filed by the C.I. of Police seeking such a direction. There is no mention in the order that as the petitioners did not co-operate with the investigating officer for the investigation in this case, the investigating officer has sought the assistance of the Court to secure the presence of the petitioners for interrogation in this case. 5. As directed by me, the learned Public Prosecutor obtained the report filed by the investigating officer before the court and read over to me. In that report also there is no whisper that the petitioners did not co-operate with the investigation nor they did not appear before him in spite of issuance of summons to them as envisaged under S.160 of the Cr.P.C. nor it is alleged that the petitioners who are accused in this case did not appear before the investigating officer in spite of issuance of notices as required under law for interrogation. The investigating officer cannot seek the aid of the court to secure the attendance of the accused for interrogation unless and until it is established that the accused did not appear before him in spite of his direction or issuance of summons to him. The investigating officer cannot seek the aid of the court to secure the attendance of the accused for interrogation unless and until it is established that the accused did not appear before him in spite of his direction or issuance of summons to him. Therefore, annexures- I and II notices issued by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer, are illegal and unsustainable. 6. Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and annexures- I and II notices issued by the learned Magistrate to the petitioners are quashed. This order will not in any way affect the right of the investigating officer to secure the presence of the accused including the petitioners for interrogation as provided under law by resorting to S.160 of the Cr.P.C.