Geetha @ Sharmila and Others vs State

R. Regupathi, J.—This petition is filed, seeking for a direction to quash the police notice dated 30.3.2009 issued by the Inspector of Police,

W.26 All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-600 083 pursuant to the CSR No. 83/W/26/AWPS/09 dated 30.3.2009

The petitioners were issued with a Notice under Sections160 and 91 Cr.P.C, whereby, they were required to appear before the Investigating

Officer on 1.4.2009 at W 26 All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai since it was believed that they are acquainted with certain facts

and circumstances relating to a telegram.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigating Officer has not mentioned about the pendency of a case, crime number and

the offence, but simply issued a notice for appearance and therefore, the notice is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned

Counsel relied on a case law reported in Prakash Transports and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, and contended that

the respondent police do not have any jurisdiction to summon the petitioners u/s 160 Cr.P.C compelling them to appear, without even registering

the case.

Perused the materials available on record and also the other materials produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

Before registration of a case, it appears that the respondent police is conducting an enquiry and that is the reason why a reference in Community

Service Register (CSR) No. 83/W/26/AWPS/09 has been mentioned. The Government of Tamil Nadu introduced a procedure, whereby, in

matters relating to matrimonial and other minor offences, the police officers may, before even registering the case and after making entry in the

Community Service Register, conduct a preliminary enquiry by summoning both the parties in dispute. Such procedure has been adopted only to

avoid unnecessary litigation and harassment for the parties. Further if a compromise could be reached even at the stage of preliminary enquiry, such

course is resorted to, else if the dispute could not be resolved and if a cognizable offence seems to be made out, usual procedure is applied by

registering a case.

In the present case, even though there is no direct provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to direct the parties to appear before the

Investigating Officer, Section 160 Cr.P.C has been invoked by the respondent police with reference to the procedure adopted while investigating

cases pertaining to matrimonial and other minor offences. Therefore, I do not find any violation in the procedure adopted by the respondent police.

Consequently, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Connected MP is closed.