Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2973 (MAD)

Sudhakar Raman v. Sub Inspector of Police

2017-09-01

G.JAYACHANDRAN

body2017
ORDER : 1. This petition is filed to quash the summon issued to the petitioner herein by the respondent police under Section 160 of Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that based on the complaint given by one Duraisamy against the petitioner, he has been called by the Police to appear in person on 16.08.2017 along with the original documents relating to the complaint, which is not legally permissible and against the provision of constitution. The further contention of the learned counsel appearing of the petitioner is that, once the petitioner has been treated as an accused, he cannot be summoned under Section 160 Cr.P.C., for investigation and asked him to disclose all the materials, which may be incriminating to him. 3. In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in V.N.Pachaimuthu v. The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District and others reported in 2012(2) MWN (cr.) 96 wherein, this Court has observed as under: 7. The petitioner is, therefore, right in contending that the Police has no jurisdiction to harass a citizen, as the duty of the Police in case of receipt of complaint, showing cognizable offence, is to register an FIR, and thereafter proceed with the investigation under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This can entitle the aggrieved party to work out the remedy in accordance with law, including invoking of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing of FIR. 8.The respondent also have no right or jurisdiction to direct a party to produce evidence, which may be going against them, as an accused cannot be directed to furnish necessary documents, as it will be for the police to collect evidence, if any, offence is made out, from the complaint. 9. The petitioner has placed on record the notice, issued under Section 160 of Cr.P.C., calling petitioner for enquiry. This notice on the face of it is without jurisdiction and unwarranted in law, as notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., can be issued to witness in pending FIR, but cannot be issued to a person, who is an accused in a complaint or before registration of the case. 4. This notice on the face of it is without jurisdiction and unwarranted in law, as notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., can be issued to witness in pending FIR, but cannot be issued to a person, who is an accused in a complaint or before registration of the case. 4. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was earlier round of dispute before this Court in connection with the subject matter and a reference to Mediation Centre by an order of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.4739 of 2017 wherein, the parties have arrived at settlement on 27.03.2017. While so, there is no necessity for the police to entertain the second complaint given by Duraisamy and the petitioner to appear in person in response to the summon issued under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that Section 160 of Cr.P.C., is not restricted to witness alone but, it applies to all the persons being within the limits of the police or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case, the police officer is empowered to seek attendance of that person. 6. The fallacious submissions made by the petitioner in two fold. Firstly, the petitioner herein has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint given by Duraisamy. The investigating officer has summoned the petitioner herein to appear in person and place the materials available with him so as to arrive at a decision upon the complaint given by Duraisamy. Unfortunately, the petitioner presumes himself as accused and want to take refuge under the judgment of V.N.Pachaimuthu cited above. The second fallacious submission is that even if there is some allegation against him in the complaint of Duraisamy, it is the duty of the police to make a fair and proper enquiry in order to find out as to whether any cognizable offence is made out and for that purpose, an opportunity has been given to the petitioner to appear and place before the Investigating Officer all the materials available with him to prove his innocent as well as to establish the complaint of Duraisamy, is baseless. When such fair opportunity has been given to the petitioner by way of summoning to him under Section 160 Cr.P.C., this Court could not understand why the petitioner is hesitant to appear before the respondent police to put forth his case, explain the facts and establish his innocence. Due to the above mentioned fallacies in this petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.