Person Who Is To Be Interrogated Or Questioned Can't Decide The Interrogation Venue: Allahabad High Court

Stressing that the investigating agency and the investigating officer have unfettered power of investigation, the Allahabad High Court on Friday observed that it is not open for the person, who is to be interrogated or questioned to decide the venue of such interrogation.

The Bench of Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra and Justice Deepak Verma further observed that the High Court has no power to interfere with the investigation under the exercise of its power under Article 226.

The plea in a brief

Essentially, the FIR in the matter was registered after the police, on receipt of information apprehended a truck and upon its search recovered four quintals forty-one kilograms of ganja from a concealed space in the driver's cabin. Two persons in the truck, were arrested and the recovery memo was prepared dated November 4, 2021.

Subsequently, notices under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act [Power to call for information, etc.] was issued to the petitioners [Rahul Pandey and 2 others] on January 1, 2022, asking them to appear in the Narcotics Control Bureau Office at Lucknow on January 5, 2022.

However, on the receipt of the notice/summon, the petitioners sent letters expressing their inability to appear in response to the notice/ summon and they also prayed that the statements be recorded in District Hathras.

Thereafter, they moved a Writ plea filed by the petitioners seeking the quashing of the first information report against them under Sections 8/20/25/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The second prayer made in the writ petition was for quashing the notice/summon issued to the petitioners under Sections 67 of N.D.P.S. Act. This notice is in connection with a case that is the subject matter of the first prayer.

It was the contention of the petitioners that once they appear in consequence of the notice issued to them, the Investigating Officer after recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in all likelihood, would arrest them.

Court's observations 

In so far as the challenge to the summon/notice dated 01.01.2022 was concerned, the Court observed that a challenge to notice is not tenable even if the person, who is required to respond to it is a practicing lawyer or his relative.

"The investigating agency and the investigating officer have unfettered power of investigation. It is also not open for the person, who is to be interrogated or questioned to decide the venue of such interrogation. Moreover, if as claimed, the petitioners have no nexus with Case. This Court fails to understand as to what prevents them from appearing before the officer concerned in pursuance of the notice issued to them," the Court observed.

Lastly, the Court also opined that the writ petition had been filed on mere apprehension and dismissed the plea.

Case title - Rahul Pandey And 2 Others v. Union Of India And 3 Others
Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 54

Click Here To Read/Download Order