Since the above order passed by this Court was not complied with by the respondent, the counsel on instructions from his client had issued a contempt notice to the respondent on the ground that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. On receipt of this legal notice, the respondent has issued a Summon under Section 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. to the counsel who is representing the petitioner and also to the petitioner.
It is quite unfortunate that the respondent police had issued a Summon on the counsel representing the petitioner and that too under Section 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. This clearly establishes non-application of mind and issuing such a Summon to an Advocate representing his client, clearly impinges upon the stature of an Advocate. The respondent probably did not even realize the seriousness of issuing such a Summon to an Advocate representing a client. This Court takes very serious note of the attitude of the respondent and the recklessness with which the Summon has been issued to the Advocate representing the petitioner.
The second serious mistake committed by the respondent is to issue a Summon under Section 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. This Court has time and again held that such a Summon can be issued only in the course of investigation after an FIR is registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the respondent was expected to consider the representation made by the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner had sought for the removal of his name from the history sheet. While considering this representation, there is absolutely no occasion for the respondent to issue a Summon under Section 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. The issuance of the Summons by itself goes against the purport of the orders passed by this Court.
Party
A.Sankar vs. V.Kumar – Cont.P. No: 818 of 2022 – 27.04.2022
also see: https://section1.in/police-may-summon-parties-during-preliminary-inquiry/
Courtesy: Thanks to Advocate Mr. Vinoth from Trichy, Tamilnadu [Early Morning Study Group/Circle]
