Police summons under Section 160 CrPC require a real connection to the investigation; misuse cannot support prosecution under Section 188 IPC.

Section 160(1) CrPC permits a police officer to summon a person only when that person appears, from information received or otherwise, to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances under investigation; a bare or convenience-based summons is outside the provision. The commentary also notes that repeated summons to a person not shown to be a relevant witness, and prosecution under Section 188 IPC for non-compliance with such summons, are unlawful where the statutory conditions are absent. The stated result is that the notices and consequential proceedings were quashed and the police were restrained from summoning the person unless Section 160 conditions are satisfied.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person can be summoned under Section 160(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless the investigating officer has reason to believe that he is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) Whether repeated summons to the petitioner and the consequential prosecution under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code were lawful.

Issue (i): Whether a person can be summoned under Section 160(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 unless the investigating officer has reason to believe that he is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: Section 160 operates only when, from information received or otherwise, the investigating officer finds that a person appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. The statutory scheme also indicates that such attendance is for examination in aid of investigation, and that reasonable expenses may be provided for by rules under Section 160(2). A person who is summoned must have a discernible connection with the facts under investigation; a bare assumption or an attempt to use the power as a means of inconvenience is outside the provision.

Conclusion: The summons could not be issued merely because the petitioner had informed the Court about alleged illegal detentions, and the power under Section 160(1) was not lawfully attracted on the facts.

Issue (ii): Whether repeated summons to the petitioner and the consequential prosecution under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code were lawful.

Analysis: An order in writing under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not an order of the kind whose disobedience attracts Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. The materials showed that the petitioner was not named as an accused or shown to be a witness with relevant knowledge, yet was repeatedly summoned in connection with cases concerning others. The Court treated this as an abuse of the power of investigation and held that the petitioner could not be harassed for having approached the Court or for having conveyed information, even if the police considered that information false.

Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and the connected notices were held to be unlawful and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ application succeeded, the impugned notices and consequential proceedings were set aside, and the police were restrained from summoning the petitioner unless the statutory conditions for doing so were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to summon a person during investigation under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is available only when the person appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and its misuse cannot be converted into a basis for penal action under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

---