JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA Heard Mr. Yellop Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. L Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioner, Pawan Agarwal, a resident of Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaypur, Rajasthan, has instituted this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the implication of the petitioner in the F.I.R dated 23.11.2017, which resulted in the registration of FIR No. 0227/2017 in the Pasighat Police Station under Sections 420/420B/34 of IPC. Further prayer is made for setting aside the Non-Bailable Warrant of Arrest (NBWA) dated 26.04.2021 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat. Also the undated notice of appearance under Section 41A of Cr.P.C issued by the Investigating Officer, the reminders under Section 41A Cr.P.C dated 08.09.2021 and 28.08.2021 of the Investigating Officer are also sought to be set aside. It is stated that during the pendency of this petition, a further notice, the date of which the learned counsel for the petitioner is unaware of was issued, which also is sought to be set aside. Consequently, a prayer is also made for setting aside all consequential proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid FIR No. 0227/2017 dated 23.11.2017 in the Pasighat Police Station. 3. We have noticed that in the Pasighat Police Station case No. 0227/2017, the Investigating Officer had issued a summon to the petitioner Pawan Agarwal under Section 160 Cr.P.C requiring him to appear before the investigating authority within a month or earlier for the purpose of the statements to be recorded. The said summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C is dated 08.03.2021. 4. In response thereof, the petitioner makes a postal communication to the Investigating Officer, which is undated and is said to have been posted on 05.04.2021 taking a stand that he was in receipt of the summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C dated 08.03.2021 and his response thereof is that he is not acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the Pasighat Police Station Case No. 0227/2017 and he had never visited Arunachal Pradesh nor does he knows as to who is the complainant in the matter. The petitioner also referred to the Covid-19 situation that was prevailing in April, 2021 and made a request that he be allowed to depose through the virtual mode before the investigating authority. The petitioner also referred to the Covid-19 situation that was prevailing in April, 2021 and made a request that he be allowed to depose through the virtual mode before the investigating authority. The petitioner also made an online communication on 17.03.2021 wherein he referred that he had been made a witness in the case and re-iterating that he has no information about the matter and he never visited Arunachal Pradesh in his life. Accordingly, co-operation was sought for from the investigating authorities. 5. In the aforesaid circumstance, some further notices under Section 41A of Cr.P.C were issued to the petitioner, which are dated 25.08.2021 and 08.09.2021 apart from one undated notice, and as orally stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a further notice the date of which he is unaware of, was also issued. 6. We have heard the argument of Mr. Y. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and from the argument it is discernible that the petitioner seeks for setting aside the FIR No. 0227/2017 before the Pasighat Police Station. In the meantime, there is also a NBWA issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat directing the Officer-in-Charge of Pasighat Police Station to arrest the petitioner Pawan Agarwal and to produce him before the Court as and when arrested. The said NBWA is also assailed in this petition. 7. From the argument of Mr. Y Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is further discernible that the petitioner seeks setting aside the FIR dated 23.11.2017 as well as all the proceedings made thereunder as well as the notices under Section 41A of Cr.P.C and the NBWA on the ground that although the petitioner is all along ready to co-operate with the investigation, but because of the Covid19 situation that was prevailing at that relevant point of time, the petitioner was prevented from appearing before the Investigating Officer. Further argument is raised by Mr. Y Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the FIR would reveal that no cognizable offence had taken place and it was a simple matter of a civil dispute between the parties regarding payment of certain amount. 8. Ms. Further argument is raised by Mr. Y Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the FIR would reveal that no cognizable offence had taken place and it was a simple matter of a civil dispute between the parties regarding payment of certain amount. 8. Ms. L Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh on the other hand by referring to the materials available in the Case Diary makes a statement that the allegations made in the FIR on its own discloses the commission of a cognizable offence to the extent that the informant was fraudulently and dishonestly induced by the person named therein by deceiving him to deliver the property of Rs. 1, 00,000,00/-(rupees one Crore) to them and therefore an offence under Section 417 read with Section 420 IPC is made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. By referring to the materials available in the case diary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also states that the investigating authority requires to trace out the money trail that may have taken place after the informant was fraudulently induced to part with his property and therefore, there is a requirement for further investigation, which also involves the petitioner. 9. With regard to the first contention raised by the petitioner that he was prevented from appearing before the investigating authority due to the Covid-19 situation as it prevailed at that relevant point of time, we are in agreement with the learned counsel inasmuch as, the relevant point of time would refer to a period around April, May and June of the year 2021 and a judicial notice can be taken of that during that period, the Covid-19 situation was having its adverse affect in the country. From such point of view, we are in agreement with the learned counsel regarding the requirement of an interference to the NBWA issued against the petitioner dated 26.04.2021 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat as well as to the notice issued under Section 41A of Cr.P.C dated 25.08.2021 and 08.09.2021 and also the further undated notices that have been referred. But having said so, we also have to examine on the maintainability of the summon issued to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C, which is dated 08.03.2021 as well as the reply of the petitioner thereof made through the postal means. 10. But having said so, we also have to examine on the maintainability of the summon issued to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C, which is dated 08.03.2021 as well as the reply of the petitioner thereof made through the postal means. 10. Section 160 Cr.P.C provides that when any police officer making an investigation by an order in writing requires the attendance before him of any person from whom the information would be necessary or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, such person shall be required to attend before the investigating authority as may be required. 11. Considering the materials available in the case diary as produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it cannot be wholly said that the summon issued to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C would not be maintainable from the point of view that the investigating authority had formed an opinion in course of the investigation that the person so summoned is likely to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or he may he having some information necessary for the investigation. 12. The factual aspect as to whether the petitioner is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, can be determined upon the petitioner appearing before the investigating authority by requiring the authority to do the needful as per law and a mere communication made by the petitioner through the postal means by taking a plea of the prevalence of Covid-19 situation, cannot be stated to be a basis to form a conclusive opinion by the Court that the petitioner may or may not be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. In any view, under the law, it would be the prerogative of the investigating authority to form such a view. From the said point of view, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the summon issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C is required to be interfered at this stage. 14. 13. In any view, under the law, it would be the prerogative of the investigating authority to form such a view. From the said point of view, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the summon issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C is required to be interfered at this stage. 14. But as regards the further contention that the allegations made in the FIR resulting in Pasighat Police Station Case No. 227/2017 does not disclose any cognizable offence, the only statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the FIR itself reveals it to be a dispute of civil nature between the informant and the petitioner or as a matter of fact between the persons who are named in the FIR, to whom the amount may have been paid. 15. A reading of the FIR goes to show that an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(rupees one crore) in four installments were required to be paid by the informant or as a matter of fact by the person on whose behalf the informant is holding the Power of Attorney to certain persons who are named therein and the FIR clearly shows that such payment were required to have been made as full payment against a land and building measuring 40 ft x 75 ft between plot No. A-47 to A-55 at Sikar House, near Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The said allegation in the FIR clearly makes it discernible that the informant or as a matter of fact, the person on whose Power of Attorney the informant has lodged the FIR was induced to believe that he is required to make a payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(rupees one crore) in lieu of the property mentioned therein being purchased and handed over to him. The further allegation in the FIR that in spite of such requirement, the property concerned had not been handed over, shows an element of there being an inducement to hand over the property by the informant, which has the element of deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly inducing him to deliver any property without the consent to retain such property or intentionally inducing the person so deceived to do or omit to do so, which he would otherwise not have omitted had he been not so deceived. 16. 16. A reading of the FIR goes to show that there is some element of the informant or the matter of fact the person in whose Power of Attorney the informant is acting to have been deceived by dishonestly being induced to deliver the property of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(rupees one crore) to the persons named in the FIR. 17. From such point of view, it cannot be accepted that the FIR itself does not disclose any cognizable offence. 18. Mr. Y Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Sushil Sethi and others –vs-The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 240 . By referring to the said pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner takes the Court to the circumstances narrated in paragraph 7.1 thereof, more particularly, to the sub-paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. The provisions of sub-paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 in paragraph 7.1 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil Sethi and others (supra) are extracted as below:- “1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156(1) of the Code of except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against Accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherent improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the Accused. 6. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherent improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the Accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code of the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievances of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 19. A reading of the said provisions shows that where the allegation made in the FIR if taken at a face value and accepted in entirety does not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; or the FIR does not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police under Section 156(1) of Cr.P.C except under an order of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C; or whether the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence or make out a case against the accused; or whether the allegation in the FIR does not constitute a cognizable offence, but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, where no investigation is permitted or where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Cr.P.C or the concerned Act under which the proceeding is initiated or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, an FIR would not be sustainable in law and would require an interference. 20. 20. With regard to the aforesaid provisions in paragraph 7.1 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil Sethi and others (supra), as we have already taken note that a reading of the FIR in Pasighat Police Station case No. 227/2017 on its own prima facie discloses a cognizable offence to have been taken place and the mere defence taken that it is a dispute of civil nature is unacceptable, we are of the view that even as per the provisions laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 7.1 of Sushil Sethi and others (supra) in the facts and circumstances of the present case, do not warrant an interference with the FIR. We further take note of that the aforesaid provision in paragraph 7.1 of Sushil Sethi and others (supra) was laid down in the circumstance as narrated in paragraph 2 of the said judgment, where there was a contract between the accused persons and the Government of Arunachal Pradesh for construction, supply and commission of a Hydel Power Project and in such contract, there was a clause of a defective liability period of 18 months. The accused persons raised some dispute regarding payment of maintenance by the respondents State towards the defect liability period, whereas the State respondents therein on the other hand lodged the FIR being Jang Police Station Case No. 05/2000 that by not doing the needful under the terms of the contract regarding the defect liability period, the contractors had committed an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. The facts and circumstances in which the aforesaid complaint was lodged in Jang Police Station case No. 05/2000 regarding non performance of a defect liability period clause and the nature of the allegations in the present FIR containing the allegation of deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly inducing the person so deceived to deliver any property, are substantially different from each other and in the present case as already taken note of a mere reading of the FIR does not disclose that there is no existence of any cognizable offence having been alleged. 21. From such point of view, the contention of the petitioner for setting aside and quashing the FIR in Pasighat Police Station case No. 227/2017 cannot be accepted. 22. 21. From such point of view, the contention of the petitioner for setting aside and quashing the FIR in Pasighat Police Station case No. 227/2017 cannot be accepted. 22. In the circumstance, we set aside the NBWA dated 26.04.2021 issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pasighat as well as the notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C dated 25.08.2021 and 08.09.2021 and the undated notices that were issued. 23. But, however, we retain the summon issued by the investigating authority dated 08.03.20212 issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. In doing so, we provide that the petitioner may co-operate with the investigating authority pursuant to the summon issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. For the purpose of enabling the petitioner to appear before the investigating authority, we further provide that the petitioner shall not be arrested nor any coercive measures be taken only up to the point of time on which he appears before the investigating authority and for doing so, the petitioner may inform the investigating authority about the date and time on which he desires to appear. After appearance of the petitioner before the investigating authority, we provide that the investigating authority shall proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and as per the requirement of the investigation. 24. After appearance of the petitioner before the investigating authority, the investigating authority would proceed from the stage in the investigation as if the petitioner had responded to the summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C dated 08.03.2021. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.