PMLA summons and CrPC territorial limits: Section 160 protections do not apply, and mala fides claims failed.

Section 160 CrPC was held inapplicable to summons issued during investigation under the PMLA because the two statutes operate in different fields: CrPC procedure is territorially structured, while Section 50 of the PMLA authorises summons to any person without a corresponding local-jurisdiction limit. The protection for women in the proviso to Section 160 could not be imported into Section 50, as the PMLA contains no such restriction and its overriding clause prevails in case of inconsistency. A writ petition challenging the summons was maintainable on a statutory interpretation issue, but allegations of mala fides were unsubstantiated, and no interference with the summons or investigation was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to summons issued during investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including the territorial limitation and the protection for women. (ii) Whether the writ petition challenging the summons was maintainable and whether the allegations of mala fides warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies to summons issued during investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including the territorial limitation and the protection for women.

Analysis: The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was found to be territorially structured, with police powers linked to local jurisdiction and police stations. By contrast, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 creates a distinct investigative mechanism for money-laundering offences, with no corresponding territorial restriction on the authorities empowered under Section 50. The Court held that Section 50 authorises summons to any person and operates in a different field from Section 160 of the Code. It further held that the proviso to Section 160, which protects women from attendance at places other than their residence, cannot be read into Section 50 because the PMLA contains no such limitation and its overriding clause prevails where inconsistency exists.

Conclusion: Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply to summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the summons could not be quashed on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition challenging the summons was maintainable and whether the allegations of mala fides warranted interference.

Analysis: The Court held that a writ petition could be entertained where breach of a legal right was asserted on a question of statutory interpretation. However, on the merits of interference, the allegations of mala fides were held to be unsubstantiated, resting only on apprehension and conjecture. The Court also noted that the manner of investigation is ordinarily within the prerogative of the investigating agency and found no basis to interfere with the summons or the investigation on that ground.

Conclusion: The challenge on maintainability and mala fides failed, and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The summons issued under the PMLA were upheld, and both proceedings were finally rejected.

---