PRAKASH TRANSPORTS 100 MOSIKIRANAR STREET INDIRA NAGAR ERODE €“ 638 003 Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to quash the summons issued by the respondent police. The summons issued to the petitioners is at page No. 1 of the typeset. The summons reads as follows: In respect of complaint given by one Mr. G. Ravichandran, 41, Sankari Main Road, Annadanaptti, Salem, I hereby issue summon to you under section 160, Cr. P. C. to 1 to 7 of you, requesting all of you to make yourself available before me at my office for my enquiry into the complaint of Mr. G. Ravichandran against you, on 15. 3. 2002 at 10. 30 a. m. without fail.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as no crime was registered by the respondent-police, he has no jurisdiction to issue summons under Section 160, Cr. P. C. compelling the petitioners to appear before him and therefore, the summons has to be quashed. I find some substance in the said contention. THE summons, which I have extracted above, shows that the officer did not even mention the crime number in the said summons. THE learned Public Prosecutor also submits that no crime was registered by the respondent. If that be the case, it is not understandable as to how he should issue summons, since under section 160, Cr. P. C. , summons could be issued by any police officer making an investigation under that Chapter, which means that investigation is a sine qua non for issuing summons and the investigation can be conducted only in connection with the crime registered in terms of Section 154, Cr. P. C. Since there is no crime registered in terms of Section 154, Cr. P. C. , no summons can be issued under Section 160, Cr. P. C. , summoning a person to appear before the officer. As the summons summoning the petitioners, issued by the officer, is without jurisdiction, it is quashed. THE petition is allowed. .