Section 160 CrPC notices are part of investigation, but limited safeguards may issue against indirect arrest.

Section 160 CrPC notices are ordinarily part of lawful investigation and were not quashed here because the impugned notices had already expired and the challenge had become infructuous. The HC held that mere apprehension of misuse did not justify interference with investigation on those facts. At the same time, the Court found a real risk that the process could be used to secure attendance and then advance arrest without meaningful recourse, so it granted limited protective directions: appearance on notice and a short restraint on arrest if a criminal case was proposed, while allowing the investigation to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether notices issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be quashed in the facts of the case. (ii) Whether protective directions were warranted to prevent indirect arrest through the investigative process.

Issue (i): Whether notices issued under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be quashed in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Section 160 is a power to require attendance of witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case and is part of lawful investigation. The notices challenged had already expired by the time of final hearing and had ceased to operate. The Court also noted that interference with investigation is not warranted merely because apprehension is raised about possible misuse, particularly where the notices themselves are no longer in force.

Conclusion: The challenge to the notices did not survive and no quashing relief was granted.

Issue (ii): Whether protective directions were warranted to prevent indirect arrest through the investigative process.

Analysis: The Court found a real apprehension that the investigative process could be used to secure attendance and then convert the witness or suspect into an accused without affording a meaningful opportunity to seek legal remedies against arrest. In that backdrop, and relying on the need to prevent abuse of process while preserving the right of investigation, the Court considered limited safeguards appropriate for the petitioner who remained under protection.

Conclusion: Limited protective directions were issued for appearance on notice and a short restraint on arrest if a criminal case was proposed.

Final Conclusion: The revision did not result in quashing of the impugned notices, but the Court granted limited protective relief to preserve the petitioner's remedy against arrest while allowing the investigation to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is ordinarily an incident of investigation and may not be quashed once it has become infructuous, but the Court may still invoke its inherent jurisdiction to issue limited safeguards where the investigative process appears capable of being used to defeat lawful remedies against arrest.

---