Bhupendra Singh vs. State Nct Of Delhi

Facts

The Petitioner, Bhupendra Singh, a resident of Ajmer, Rajasthan, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a notice dated January 31, 2025, issued by an officer of the State NCT of Delhi under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The notice directed the Petitioner to join an investigation on February 11, 2025, at the Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi. The FIR, registered on April 28, 2023, concerns offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, related to alleged illegal refund of GST amounts. The Petitioner argued that since he resides outside the jurisdiction of the Delhi Police Station, the notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was invalid. He offered to cooperate with the investigation at a local police station in Ajmer.

Held

The Court addressed the Petitioner's concern regarding the territorial jurisdiction for issuing a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. While the Petitioner argued that the notice was invalid as he resided outside the jurisdiction, the Respondent proposed a practical solution. The Court accepted the Respondent's proposal that the Petitioner could join the investigation through Video Conferencing (VC) on February 12, 2025. The Court further directed that if further investigation is required after February 12, 2025, the Petitioner shall continue to join through VC on dates notified by the concerned ACP. Crucially, the Court stipulated that if physical interrogation is necessary, the ACP shall visit the Petitioner in Ajmer, Rajasthan, in accordance with the law. This approach balanced the need for investigation with the Petitioner's jurisdictional concerns and convenience. The ratio decidendi is that while jurisdictional limitations for Section 160 Cr.P.C. notices exist, practical accommodations like VC or the investigating officer traveling to the witness's location can be made to facilitate investigation, especially when the witness is willing to cooperate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Respondent, an officer of the State NCT of Delhi, could issue a notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to the Petitioner, who resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Police Station, for joining an investigation related to an FIR registered in Delhi? The Petitioner contended that Section 160 Cr.P.C. restricts the power to issue summons to persons within the jurisdiction of the police station or to those residing within the limits of the State. He relied on judgments from a Coordinate Bench of the Delhi High Court in *Kulvinder Singh Kohli v. State of NCT of Delhi & Others* and *Jamshed Adil Khan & Another v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Another* to support this argument. The Petitioner expressed willingness to join the investigation through video conferencing at a local police station in Ajmer. The Respondent, while not disputing the judicial pronouncements, stated that the Petitioner's involvement was in relation to an illegal GST refund, and money tracing had led to him. The Respondent proposed that the Petitioner could join the investigation through Video Conferencing (VC) on February 12, 2025.