The single-judge bench of Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sutapa Adhikari and Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr held that Section 160 of the Cr.P.C empowers a police officer to require the attendance of witness and therefore under the garb of section 160 of the Cr.P.C. a person unconnected with the offense, cannot be directed to appear through a notice under Section 160.
Brief facts
The factual Matrix of the case is that the written complaint was filed against the Petitioner by the present opposite party no. 2 under section 120B/409/477A of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that certain developments completed under the Contai Municipality's development scheme are deceptive.
The notices were issued to the petitioner under Section 160 of the code of criminal procedure and the present application is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C along with Article 227 of the constitution of India in order to challenge the impugned order.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the investigating agency is acting on the whims of their political rulers and conducting a vindictive investigation in this regard. It was further contended that the relevant documents are matters of record, that the petitioner is unfamiliar with the facts and circumstances of the aforementioned case, and that the notices herein are devoid of reasons, and that the notices are illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and prejudicial to the interests of justice, and thus are liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relied upon the judgments titled Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra, Anirudha S. Bhagat Vs. Ramnwas Meena and another, Pakala Narayana swami Vs. King-Emperor, and Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani and another Nand.
Contentions of the State
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the notice issued under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. is a relevant part of the free and fair investigation and quashing of the impugned order will be against the spirit of the said provision. It was also contended that as per the case diary, the Petitioners were well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Observations of the court
The Hon'ble court questioned
“as to why the investigating agency would likely to adopt indirect method to arrest a person in such way, when they have the power to arrest at any time directly, if necessary, in case of cognizable offence.”
The petitioner submitted that the only reason could be that the investigating agency does not want the person to have the opportunity to use the anticipatory bail or protective order that is available to an accused or a person facing arrest.
The hon'ble court declared the notices infructuous which bears specific date. Furthermore, the court observed that the practice of calling someone not named in the FIR or not connected in any way to committing the offense by a notice under section 160 of the Cr.P.C and when the person concerned complies with the direction of such notice, the investigating officer implicates him as an accused and arrests him directly cannot be encouraged. Such a procedure used by the investigating agency is not in accordance with the provisions and goals outlined in Section 160 of the Cr.P.C., and it also violates natural justice principles.
It was Furthermore observed that even if there is an allegation of a violation of notice under section 160 of the Cr.P.C., the public servant may proceed under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, but the investigation agency may not use section 160 of the Cr.P.C. as an oppressive measure against anyone.
It was noted that it is the court's responsibility to ensure that criminal law does not become a tool for selective harassment of citizens. Courts must be aware of both ends of the spectrum: the need to ensure proper criminal law enforcement on the one hand, and the need to ensure that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment on the other.
The decision of the court
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the present application with certain directions.
Case title: Sutapa Adhikari and Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal & Anr
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee
Case No.: CRR 2464 of 2022
Advocates for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajdeep Mazumder Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee Mr. Abhijit Singh Ms. Aishwarya Bazaz
Advocates for the State: Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukhere, Ld. PP Mr. Rudradipta Nandy
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
