AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner prays for issuance of Writ, in the nature of prohibition, restraining the Respondents 1 to 3 from
proceeding with any enquiry against the Petitioner in relation to the property falling in Survey Nos. 89/1 & 89/3, Kattananthal Village, Kallakurichi
Taluk, Villupuram District, without following due process of law. This Writ Petition is prima facie not competent, as this Court cannot prohibit the
Police authorities to proceed with the matter in accordance with law, in case of Complaint, showing cognizable offence.
The Respondent No. 4 lodged a Complaint with the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram, alleging fraud in dispossession of
Petitioner from the property, owned by him.
The submission of Petitioner is that the Inspector of Police, instead of holding preliminary enquiry to find out the truth of allegations and
thereafter proceed with the Complaint in accordance with law u/s 154 r/w Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued notice to the
Petitioner u/s 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Respondent No. 4 filed a Complaint alleging therein that she was owner of the property, on the basis of Sale Deed dated 6.2.1990 and
alleged that the Petitioner was guilty of land grabbing.
The submission of Petitioner is that the Complaint made by Respondent No. 4 is patently false, as the matter is purely of Civil in nature. It is also
submission of Petitioner that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 under the guise of enquiry, were harassing and threatening the Petitioner without any basis. It
is also stated in the affidavit that Respondents are compelling the Petitioner to consent to their demand by unconditionally vacating the land. The
submission made hereinabove can only be seen in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, and not in exercise of Writ
jurisdiction. However, learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that no case has been registered, but Petitioner has been summoned u/s 160 of
Cr.P.C.
The Petitioner is, therefore, right in contending that the Police has no jurisdiction to harass a citizen, as the duty of the Police in case of receipt of
Complaint, showing cognizable offence, is to register an FIR, and thereafter proceed with the investigation u/s 157 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. This can entitle the aggrieved party to work out the remedy in accordance with law, including invoking of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for
quashing of FIR.
The Respondents also have no right or jurisdiction to direct a party to produce evidence, which may be going against them, as an Accused
cannot be directed to furnish necessary documents, as it will be for the Police to collect evidence, if any offence is made out, from the Complaint.
The Petitioner has placed on record the notice, issued u/s 160 of Cr.P.C., calling Petitioner for enquiry. This notice on the face of it is without
jurisdiction and unwarranted in law, as notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C., can be issued to witness in pending FIR, but cannot be issued to a person, who is
an accused in a Complaint or before registration of the case.
This Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed to a limited extent and the notice issued by second Respondent u/s 160 of Cr.P.C., calling Petitioner for
enquiry, is ordered to be quashed.
As already observed above, Respondents can only proceed under the provisions of Cr.P.C., in case Complaint discloses any cognizable
offences. A citizen cannot be called for enquiry u/s 160 of Cr.P.C., in absence of any FIR. The power u/s 160 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised to call
a witness, after FIR is registered. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.