Territorial limits on police attendance notices under CrPC were held prima facie binding, with interim stay granted.

Section 160 CrPC was construed as territorially limited to persons within the officer's own station or an adjoining station, and not as conferring an all-India power to require attendance; on that basis, the challenge to notices issued outside the permitted local limits was found prima facie well founded. The writ petition was treated as maintainable because the affected natural persons were also petitioners, and territorial jurisdiction was held to exist since the notices were served on persons in Delhi and part of the cause of action arose there. Interim protection was granted, and operation of the notices was stayed pending further hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the police had power under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to issue the impugned notices to persons outside the local limits contemplated by the provision; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the presence of the Directorate of Enforcement as a petitioner; (iii) whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the notices; and (iv) whether interim relief was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether the police had power under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to issue the impugned notices to persons outside the local limits contemplated by the provision.

Analysis: The statutory text limits the power to require attendance to a person within the limits of the officer's own station or any adjoining station. The Court held that the language does not confer a pan-India power and that the restriction is deliberate. Reliance on the earlier view that summons issued outside the adjoining jurisdiction was without authority was found persuasive, while the decision relied on by the respondents arose in a materially different statutory setting.

Conclusion: The challenge to the competence of the respondents to issue the notices was held to be prima facie well founded, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the presence of the Directorate of Enforcement as a petitioner.

Analysis: The petition was also filed by natural persons who were the persons directly affected by the impugned notices. On that basis, the preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable merely because one petitioner was the Directorate of Enforcement was not accepted at this stage.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the challenge to the notices.

Analysis: The notices were served on persons residing and stationed in Delhi, and the alleged legal injury was asserted to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Applying the settled principle that part of the cause of action can confer jurisdiction, the Court found a prima facie basis to entertain the petition.

Conclusion: Territorial jurisdiction was held to exist, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (iv): Whether interim relief was warranted.

Analysis: The Court found a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of injury sufficient to justify ad-interim protection pending further hearing.

Conclusion: Operation of the impugned notices was stayed till further orders, in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded at the interim stage, with the impugned notices remaining stayed and the respondents directed to file their response.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is territorially limited to persons within the officer's own station or an adjoining station, and such limitation cannot be treated as conferring an all-India power of summons.

---