1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11130 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 S.A.V.Joseph : Petitioners -Vs- 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City. 2.Sundar : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the records pertaining to the summons issued to the petitioner dated nil on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani G.A. (Crl. Side) O R D E R This petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the summons issued to the petitioner dated nil on the file of the respondent police and quash the same. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent police has issued summons to the petitioner herein to appear before him on 10.08.2011 at 7.00 p.m. for enquiry. He would further submit that without registering F.I.R. and without crime number, the respondent is not having the jurisdiction to summon the petitioner for enquiry and notice under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C. could be invoked by the police only after the registration of F.I.R. and during the course of the investigation, but, the respondent police exceeding their powers and issued summons without registering F.I.R. He would further submit that the petitioner has already been enquired on the same complaint and it was closed by another police and now the same complaint has been preferred before the respondent police and hence, he prayed for quashing summon issued by the respondent police. To substantiate his argument, he relied on the decision of this Court in Prakash Transports, 100, Mosikiranar Street, Indira Nagar, Erode and 6 others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Sales reported in 2004(1) CTC 130. 3.Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader and perused the materials available on records. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.The petitioner herein has received the summon issued by the respondent under Section 91 and 160 Cr.P.C., wherein, the petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent police on 10.08.2011 at 7.00 p.m. on the basis of the complaint given by one Sundar. But, admittedly, no crime number has been mentioned and no case has been registered. The complaint given by the said Sundar has been received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision of this Court relied upon by the petitioner in Prakash Transports, 100, Mosikiranar Street, Indira Nagar, Erode and 6 others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Sales reported in 2004(1) CTC 130, wherein, this Court has held as follows: “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. Th 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 petitioner, issued by the officer, is without jurisdiction, it is quashed.” 5.Considering the above said decision, without registering a case, the respondent police is not having any jurisdiction to issue summons under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C, compelling the petitioner to appear before him and hence it is a fit case to quash the summons by the respondent police. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and the summons issued to the petitioner dated nil on the file of the respondent police is hereby quashed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl. Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Tirunelveli City. 2.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Crl.O.P.(MD).No.11130 of 2011 23.09.2011 arul/RJ/10.10.11/(2p/3c) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/