PUSMA INVESTMENT PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legality of the notices issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Headquarters, Meghalaya, Shillong under Section 160/91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requiring the petitioners, who are residing in New Delhi, to appear before him at Shillong for recording their statements in connection with Laban P.S. Case No. 63 (11)04 under Sections 408/415/418/420/423/424/464/468/471/120-B IPC and for production of some documents, are under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Though the facts pleaded by the petitioners in the writ petition are many, it is not necessary to refer to them in detail as the controversy can be resolved on a narrow compass. The notices are dated 1.11.2007, and dated 28.5.2008 addressed to each of the petitioners, two of which, being illustrative of the other notices, run along the following lines : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_589_GAULT4_2009Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) There is no dispute at the bar that the petitioners No. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 are residents of Daryaganj, New Delhi while the petitioner No. 3 is a resident of Faridabad, Haryana : they are then obviously not within the limits of Shillong Police Station or within the adjoining police station. The notices reproduced herein above indicate that the petitioners have been required to appear before the respondent No. 6 at the C.I.D. Headquarters at Shillong. Before proceeding further, it may be useful to refer to the provisions of Sections 91 and 160 CrPC hereunder :