Allowed

Sunita Sud v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Aug 2009CRM-M/1580/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notice issued by the Acting SHO under Section 160 Cr.P.C. that restrained property parties from construction activity pending another investigation. The Court held that Section 160 does not authorize police to grant injunctions and quashed the notice, directing the SSP to prevent over-assumption of legislative authority.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 04.01.2008 passed under Section 160 Cr.P.C. is quashed. Directions issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure officers within their jurisdiction do not pass such notices

Sunita Sud Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. 1580-M of 2008. Date of Decision : August 05, 2009.

¶3

Sunita Sud wife of Sh. Y.K. Sud, resident of # 664, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab. ...... Petitioner .

¶4

Versus.

¶5

State of Punjab and others. ..... Respondents.

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

¶7

Present:Mr. Rohit Sud, Advocate, for the petitioner .

¶8

Mr. Kamaldeep Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab, for the respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶9

Mr. Thakur Kartar Singh, Advocate, for the respondent No. 4.

¶10

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

¶11

The challenge in the present petition is to the notice dated 04.01.2008 (Annexure-P-3), purported to have been passed under Section 160 Cr.P.C., wherein the then acting Station House Officer, Police Station Division No. 4, Jalandhar, had informed the husband of the petitioner that till the time investigation into the application which has been put in by Shri Vinod Sarin is not completed, none of the parties in the plot, where they had been stopped from constructing a room, shall do any activity on the site. If any activity is done, then action will be taken in accordance with law.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner contends that no injunction can be granted by a police officer, exercising its powers under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The acting S.H.O. had in the garb of provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C. usurped the powers of the Civil Court and the powers allocated to him such

¶13

Criminal Misc. No. 1580-M of 2008.

¶14

-2-

¶15

powers which are not provided under the statute. If such powers could have been exercised, that would have been exercised under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and that powers are also not available with the S.H.O. as the said powers are only with Executive Magistrate and that too on the satisfaction of report of the police officer. He, therefore, submits that the notice in question cannot be sustained as the same is beyond the authority as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶16

Counsel for the State as well as counsel for the private respondent are unable to contradict the submission as has been made by counsel for the petitioner. What has been contended by counsel for the private respondent is that the officer, who had passed the notice in question was not the person, who has been impleaded as a respondent, but was an officer other than the private respondent as the private respondent was on leave for two days.

¶17

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case as well as the provisions of Section 160 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Section 160 Cr.P.C. reads as follow :-

¶19

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:

¶20

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.

¶21

2. The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable

¶22

Criminal Misc. No. 1580-M of 2008.

¶23

-3-

¶24

expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence.

¶25

Perusal of the above does not need further explanation and as is

¶26

apparent, there is no power with the police officer to issue such a notice as has been passed by him under Section 160 Cr.P.C.

¶27

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and notice dated 04.01.2008 (Annexure-P-3) is hereby quashed.

¶28

It has come on record in the affidavit of Shri Gagan Ajit Singh, P.P.S., D.S.P. (City-I), Jalandhar, that the officer, who had issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was A.S.I. Jagdish Kumar.

¶29

The Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, is directed to look into the matter and take necessary steps in accordance with law, so that such notice(s), which is/are beyond the jurisdiction of the police officer(s), are not passed by officer(s), beyond their authority or, which are not conferred on them by any law.

¶30

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

¶31

August 05, 2009. sjks.

Sunita Sud v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Sud v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Preet Brar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rakesh Bhushan & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Neelam and Ors. Vs Vijay

A.G. Raju Vs State of Punjab

Bakhshish Singh Vs Ssp, Tarn Taran and Ors.

Hardial Singh & Ors. Vs Bachan Singh & Anr.