Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court came down heavily on the police officials for having sent a summons to the Counsel representing a party under Section 91 and 160 of the CrPC.

 The court stated that the order was made without application of mind and such issuance of summons impinges upon the stature of an Advocate. The court took serious note of the attitude and recklessness with which the police sent the summons to the Counsel for the Petitioner.  The contempt petition was filed by Mr. A Sankar on the ground that the respondent had not complied with the order of the Court dated 18.01.2019 directing the respondent to consider the representations of the petitioner. The petitioner had made representations to remove his name from the history sheet.

 The court had made the above direction in line with the guidelines given in the decision of Sabari v. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and others (2018). The petitioner submitted that he had sent a legal notice to the respondent for contempt and upon receipt of the legal notice, a Summons was issued to the counsel representing the petitioner and to the petitioner himself.  The court further observed that the act of the respondent in sending summons to the petitioner was also not proper as it has been time and again held that a Summon can be issued only in the course of investigation after an FIR is registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The court observed how there was no need for the respondent police to issue a summons and such issuance itself goes against the purport of the orders passed by the Court. A government prosecutor (criminal) has submitted that the defendant has withdrawn the subpoena and has been instructed to send a personal letter to a lawyer regretting his mistakes. The court took note of this submission and instructed the defendant to report compliance in the next court post.

 This issue was published on June 6, 2022, to report compliance.

Leave a Comment

× Need legal help?