Orissa High Court
Rashmi Sharma vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party(S) on 11 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.4515 of 2024
Rashmi Sharma .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. T. K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party(s)
Mr. B. Nayak, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 11.03.2025
01. 1. Heard.
2. The petitioner has assailed the notice under Section 160
Cr.P.C. issued by the Sub-Inspector, Berhampur Town Police
Station in regard to the investigation in Berhampur Town P.S. Case
No.265 of 2024 for alleged commission of offences punishable
under Sections 420/406/409/294/506 of I.P.C. Admittedly, the
petitioner is not an accused in the said case. Therefore, it is obvious
that the petitioner has been summoned by the Investigating Officer
as a witness. The petitioner has challenged the afore-referred
notices questioning the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer to
issue the same.
3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sitaram Chayela vrs.
Officer-in-charge, Laxmisagar Police Station, Bhubaneswar and
another reported in (1999) 17 OCR 123 and emphasized at
paragraphs-3, 4 & 6 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"3.Section 160, Cr.P.C., reads as follows: -
"160. Police officer's power to require attendance of
witnesses.
(1)Any police officer making an investigation under
this Chapter may, by order in writing require the
attendance before himself of any person being
within the limits of his own or any adjoining station
who, from the information given or otherwise,
appears to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case; and such person shall
attend as so required :
Provided that no male person under the age of
fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at
any place other than the place in which such male
person or woman resides.
(2)The State Government may, by rules made in this
behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer
of the reasonable expenses of every person,
attending under sub-section (1) at any place other
than his residence.
A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates
that a police officer can require the attendance of
any person being within the limits of his own or in
adjoining station. Since noncompliance with the
direction under Section 160 may amount to an
offence punishable under Section 174, I.P.C., the
provisions contained in Section 160, Cr.P.C. are to
be construed strictly. It is quite evident that Section
160 does not empower a police officer to require the
presence of any person unless such person is within
the limits of the police station concerned or of any
adjoining police station.
4. In the decision reported in 1975 Cri.L.J., 620
(Krishan Dans Bhadur and another v. The State
of Himachal Pradesh), it was held that where
notice was issued against a person not within the
jurisdiction of the police station, nor the adjoining
police station, noncompliance with such order does
not amount to commission of any offence, if any
order is passed under Section 160. It is evident that
if notice under Section 160, Cr.P.C. is issued against
any person not within the limits of a police station or
of an adjoining police station, such notice can be
said to be without jurisdiction and the notice is free
to ignore such illegal notice.
6. In the present case, judicial notice can be taken of
the fact that Professorpara in Cuttack Town is not
within the jurisdiction of Laxmisagar Police Station
of Bhubaneswar, nor it is within the jurisdiction of
any adjoining police station. The notice under
Section 160, Cr.P.C. is thus ex facie illegal and the
petitioner need not comply with such notice."
Relying upon the aforesaid judgment, Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel submits that the F.I.R. is registered in Berhampur and the
petitioner is admittedly residing at Rourkela. Since the petitioner is
not residing either in the local jurisdiction of the police station or
adjacent to the police jurisdiction, therefore, the I.O. had no
jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C to the
petitioner.
4. I have carefully gone through the record and perused the
document and judgment cited at the Bar. This Court is not inclined
to venture into the maintainability and legality of the notice under
Section 160 Cr.P.C. rather suffice it to say that the petitioner shall
appear before the I.O. on or before 15.04.2025 by communicating a
fixed date to the I.O. Needless to say that, the I.O. shall not coerced
the petitioner to depose in any manner whatsoever.
5. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Swarna
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 13-Mar-2025 16:45:59
