TEESTA ATUL SETALVAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr P.K. Jani, learned Public Prosecutor waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) Heard Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Counsel assisted by Mr Kalpesh M Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P K Jani, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondents. The present Criminal Misc.Application has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, "the Code") for quashing of FIR registered as C.R. No.I-3 of 2006 with Lunawada police station, District Panchmahals as well as for quashing of summons dated 9.5.2011 issued by the In Charge, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lunawada Region, Lunawada. The main relief sought for in para 15 (a) to 15 (d) reads as under:

(3.) So far as the prayers at para 15 (c) and 15 (d) of this petition are concerned, as has been narrated above, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the document marked as Annexure "R" and has submitted that it is the summons issued under section 160 of the Code dated 18.3.2011 asking the present petitioner to remain present in Lunawada Sub Divisional Police Office, Lunawada on 25.3.2011 which was sent by Registered Post A.D. and the present petitioner had received the same only on 25.3.2011 itself, and therefore, the petitioner had sent reply dated 25.3.2011 by Fax and also by RPAD post drawing attention of the Investigating Officer to consider the provisions of section 160 of the Code as the petitioner is a woman witness, the statement shall be required to be recorded at the place where the petitioner is residing. Copy of the said letter/reply is annexed as 'Annexure "U". Meanwhile the Investigating Officer of FIR No. CR.I-3 of 2006 referred above was transferred and the charge sheet was filed on 3.4.2011 wherein the petitioner was shown as absconder despite the fact that the petitioner was granted Anticipatory Bail and the petitioner had as such not committed breach of any of the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court, Godhra while granting the same. She has further drawn the attention of this court that thereafter the petitioner had received summons at Annexure "V" dated 28.4.2011 asking the petitioner to remain present in connection with CR.No.I-3 of 2006 and referring the said summons it did not mention section 160 of the Code like the one dated 18.3.2011 sent earlier. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has then drawn my attention to the document at Annexure "W", detailed reply dated 6.5.2011 and submitted that attention of the Investigating Officer has been drawn to the fact that the earlier summons was issued under section 160 of the Code and the petitioner was summoned as a witness. Thereafter charge sheet was filed on 3.4.2011 showing the petitioner as absconder despite the fact that the petitioner was granted anticipatory bail and all the conditions of the bail were abode by her and so the petitioner had further asked the Investigating Officer to remove the confusion regarding validity of the charge sheet by correcting the word absconder and further asked the Investigating Officer to give sufficient notice in the summons.