Allahabad High Court expresses strong disapproval over issuing section 160 CrPC notice to the accused 17 years after the filing of FIR, calling it derision of the criminal justice system
INTRODUCTION
Last week, the Allahabad High Court disapproved the issuance of notice under Section 160 of CrPC to 5 accused in connection with an FIR registered against them in the year 2006, about 17 years back. Calling it a mockery of the criminal jurisprudence protected the 5 accused and also gave them the liberty to apply for anticipatory bail in the matter.
MOCKERY OF CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE
In this peculiar scenario, a case was lodged 17 years ago on May 6, 2006, against 106 individuals, including the petitioners. Recently, the petitioners received a notice dated April 19, 2023, under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoning them to provide their statements. The counsel representing the petitioners argues that petitioner no.1, Devendra Singh, has retired as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, petitioner no.2, Parashuram (also known as Parashuram), has superannuated from the post of A.D.O. (Panchayat), and petitioner no.3, Ram Kishun (also known as Ramkishun Yadav), retired as Block Pramukh.
Additionally, respondents no.4 and 5 were Kotedar at the relevant time. The next point raised is that despite the passage of 17 years, the investigation is still ongoing without any conclusive outcomes. The petitioners express their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, provided their interests are safeguarded. Upon examining the allegations and accusations mentioned in the FIR, the current actions undertaken by the police, after such a significant time lapse, seem peculiar and undermine the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the interests of the petitioners will be protected for a period of one month, starting today.
They are granted the liberty to apply for anticipatory bail, which will be considered sympathetically by the respective court within one week of its filing. It should be taken into account that the petitioner has already retired and the matter pertains to the year 2006. However, it is emphasized that the petitioners must continue to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
STAND OF COURT
The Allahabad High Court strongly criticizes the recent issuance of a Section 160 CrPC notice to the accused, a shocking 17 years after the filing of the FIR. Describing it as a “Mockery of Criminal Jurisprudence,” the court expresses its deep disapproval of the situation. The petitioners, who include retired officials and individuals from various positions of authority, have received the notice summoning them to provide statements.
However, in an effort to protect the interests of the petitioners, the court grants them a one-month period of safeguarded status. Furthermore, the court assures the petitioners that if they choose to apply for anticipatory bail, it will be considered sympathetically, taking into account their retirement and the fact that the case dates back to 2006. The court emphasizes that cooperation with the investigation remains essential throughout this process.
ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER
The petitioners’ counsel argues that despite their willingness to cooperate with the investigation, no concrete progress has been made over the extensive-time period. The court acknowledges the serious allegations made in the FIR and finds the ongoing police actions quite perplexing given the substantial delay.
SECTION 160 CRPC
Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is a legal provision that empowers an investigating officer to summon individuals for the purpose of recording their statements during the course of an investigation. This section lays down the procedure for issuing notices to persons who may have relevant information or knowledge regarding a criminal case. Under Section 160 CrPC, the investigating officer has the authority to summon any person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case to appear before them.
The notice issued under this section requires the summoned person to attend the police station or any other specified location at a designated time and date to provide their statement. The purpose of summoning individuals under Section 160 is to gather evidence, elicit information, or verify facts related to the investigation. The person summoned is obligated to truthfully answer questions and provide any relevant details within their knowledge. Failure to comply with a Section 160 notice without a valid reason may lead to legal consequences.
It is important to note that Section 160 CrPC does not grant the investigating officer the power to arrest the summoned person. However, if during the course of the statement recording, the investigating officer becomes aware of any grounds for arrest, they may proceed to take appropriate legal action in accordance with the provisions of the law. Overall, Section 160 CrPC serves as a crucial tool for investigators to gather information and statements from individuals who may have knowledge or involvement in a criminal case, aiding in the process of establishing the truth and ensuring a fair and thorough investigation.
