TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad city. Mr. N.K. Gaikwad, Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Branch-II, Pune city i.e., the 2nd respondent herein had issued summons dated 24-9-1998, under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, informing the petitioner that an investigation was going on by Samarth Police in Crime No. 3 of 1998 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34, 109 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and in that connection the presence of the petitioner was required for further investigation and, therefore, he should be present before him at Urvasi hotel, Punjagutta, Hyderabad at Room No. 317 on 25-9-1998 at 10 a.m. On service of the said summons, the petitioner appeared before the said Sub-Inspector of Police on 25-9-1998 at Urv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of the F.I.R. in Crime No. 3 of 1998. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he could get a copy of the F.I.R which was in Marathi language, through his advocate, Miss Nivedita C. Kale, who informed him that his name does not figure in the F.I.R. Subsequently, the said S.R. Kulkarni, Assistant Police Inspector, came to Hyderabad on 4th or 5th June 1999 and asked the petitioner to go over to Pune. The case of the petitioner is that when he explained his difficulty and the inconvenience that would be caused to him in visiting Pune frequently, the said police officer told him that even though he is not concerned with Crime No. 3 of 1998, he should meet him at Pune as he had to file final report in Crime No. 3 of 1998. On 12-7-1999, the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therwise. 7. This view is fully supported by a decision of the Delhi High Court in Washashar Nath Chadha v. State wherein it was held that: A bare reading of the above section makes it abundantly clear that a Police officer is empowered to direct any person to be present before him so as to be available for interrogation who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case provided that the said person is available within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. 8. Undisputedly, in this case, the petitioner is not residing within the limits of police station of respondents 1 and 2 herein or any adjoining station. He is residing at Hyderabad, which is far away from Pune. Therefore, the action of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
