Neelam Sibal vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 3742 Del

39
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      Crl. M.A. No.13547/2010 in W.P. (Crl.) No.847/2010



       NEELAM SIBAL                              ..... Petitioner
                              Through:     Ms.Manisha Bhandari and Mr.Omkar
                                           Shrivastava, Advs.

                     versus


       STATE                                            ..... Respondent
                              Through:     Ms. P.Mallikarjune, Adv. for Mr.Saleem
                                           Ahmed, ASC for State.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA


               ORDER

% 11.08.2010

Crl. M.A. No.13547/2010 in W.P. (Crl.) No.847/2010 While granting interim protection vide order dated 4th June, 2010, it was directed that the petitioner, who is applicant herein, would co-operate with the investigation and join the same.

On the next date of hearing, it was alleged by the State that the petitioner is not joining investigation. With the consent of the counsel for the petitioner, order dated 27th July, 2010 was passed that she should appear before the Investigating Officer on 6th August, 2010 at 12.00 Noon. The petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer on 6th August, 2010 and the present application has been filed on or about 10th August, 2010, stating, inter alia that the Investigating Officer should interrogate the petitioner at Mumbai. Reliance is placed on Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani and Another, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1025. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly pointed out that in a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in State represented by Inspector of Police and Others Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate, AIR 2004 SC 2282, it has been held that Section 160 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to an accused.

In the present case the order dated 27th July, 2010 should have been complied with. It was directed that the petitioner should come to Delhi for interrogation. Counsel for the petitioner had consented to the said direction. I am inclined to withdraw the interim protection for failure of the petitioner to comply with the said order. However, one last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on 16th August, 2010 at 12.00 Noon. The application is disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

AUGUST 11, 2010 J