Ravindra Singh - (1.) -This application has been filed by the applicants Piyare Lal and Pravesh Kumar with a prayer that the order dated 7.4.2008, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad, in Case No. RC-9(S)/06/CBI/SCB-II/Delhi, C.B.I. v. B. P. Singh Dhakarey and others, by which the N.B.W. has been issued against the applicants may be quashed.
(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that the F.I.R. of Case Crime No. 7 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 506, I.P.C., P. S. Rakaganj, District Agra has been registered on 7.1.2004 which is under investigation of C.B.I. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer has moved an application before the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad for issuing the N.B.W. against the applicants and co-accused Shakti Singh Dhakrey and Bhagwan Singh, the same has been allowed and the N.B.W. has been issued against the applicants and other co-accused persons. Heard Sri Ranjeet Saxena and Sri B. P. Singh Dhakray, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri G. S. Hajela, counsel for the C.B.I. and Sri Brij Bhushan Upadhyay and Sri Rakesh Kumar for O.P. No. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have fully cooperated with the investigation, they were always available for inquiry or interrogation to Investigating Officer of the C.B.I. even then the application has been moved by the Investigating Officer for obtaining the N.B.W. from the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate concerned has not gone through the provisions of the law and illegally relied upon the provisions of Section 160, Cr. P.C. which deals with police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses. In the present case the provisions of Section 160, Cr. P.C. are not applicable. The learned Magistrate concerned has illegally issued the N.B.W. against the applicants.
(3.) IT is further contended that Investigating Officer of this case has illegally applied for obtaining the N.B.W. and the same has been illegally issued by the learned Magistrate concerned vide order dated 7.4.2008. The impugned order dated 7.4.2008 is illegal and it may be set aside. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned counsel for the C.B.I. and learned counsel for O.P. No. 4 that in the present case the notice was issued to the applicants and other co-accused persons under Section 160, Cr. P.C. at the stage of investigation for the purpose of interrogation, it may be issued to any person whose attendance is required. The provisions are not confined up to the witnesses only. The Section 160 reads as under : "160. Police Officer's power to require attendance of witnesses.-(1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case ; and such person shall attend as so required ; Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such male person or woman resides." ;