- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- High Court of J & K and Ladakh
- /
- Summons U/S 91 CrPC Cannot Be...
Summons U/S 91 CrPC Cannot Be Issued During Preliminary Verification As It Is Not An 'Investigation': J&K High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
31 Jan 2025 8:00 AM
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be invoked only during an inquiry, investigation, or trial, and cannot be exercised at the stage of preliminary verification.In quashing summons issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to the petitioner, Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that a...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that the power under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be invoked only during an inquiry, investigation, or trial, and cannot be exercised at the stage of preliminary verification.
In quashing summons issued by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to the petitioner,
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed that a preliminary verification is not an "investigation" under the Code, and hence, such summons lacked legal jurisdiction.
“It needs to be pointed out here that the scope of a preliminary verification is limited and narrow and signifies that it must not involve investigative powers unless specifically permitted by law”, the court reasoned.
Background:
The matter arose when the ACB Jammu initiated preliminary verification proceedings against the Ladies Cooperative House Building Society Limited, Samba (the Society). During this verification, the ACB issued a communication to the Managing Director of J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation Ltd., Jammu, directing him to provide various records related to the Society. The petitioner, Bharat Bhushan, who held the position of Managing Director of the Corporation, in turn, requested the Secretary of the Society to furnish the necessary documents.
However, the Society challenged the preliminary verification before the High Court through a petition. The Court, through its interim order permitted the ACB to proceed with the verification but restrained it from registering an FIR without prior permission of the Court. Despite this, the ACB issued fresh summons under Section 91 CrPC, compelling the production of documents from the petitioner.
Aggrieved by this summons, the petitioner approached the Court. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Salih Pirzada, argued that Section 91 CrPC could not be invoked in the absence of a formal investigation, inquiry, or trial. Since the ACB was merely conducting a preliminary verification, which does not fall within the definition of "investigation" under CrPC, the summons was without jurisdiction.
Court Observations:
Justice Wani meticulously examined Section 91 CrPC, which empowers a court or a police officer in charge of a police station to summon documents if their production is "necessary or desirable" for the purposes of an investigation, inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The Court emphasized that the key terms "inquiry," "investigation," and "trial" have specific legal meanings under the Code.
Referring to Section 2(g) of CrPC, the Court explained that an "inquiry" is a judicial act conducted by a magistrate or court, while Section 2(h) defines "investigation" as a process undertaken by a police officer or an authorized individual for evidence collection. The term "trial" is not explicitly defined in the Code but denotes judicial proceedings determining the guilt or innocence of an accused, the court underscored.
The Court noted that preliminary verification is distinct from an "investigation" and is merely a limited fact-checking exercise conducted before deciding whether to register an FIR. It does not carry the procedural safeguards and powers associated with a full-fledged investigation.
Quoting the Supreme Court's ruling in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of U.P. [(2014) 2 SCC 1], the Court reiterated that preliminary verification is only meant to ascertain whether a complaint discloses a cognizable offense. It does not involve the extensive investigative powers that come into play after an FIR is registered, it underlined.
Justice Wani, therefore, concluded that since the case was still at the preliminary verification stage, the ACB could not invoke Section 91 CrPC to summon records. Consequently, the summons dated April 2, 2024, was held to be without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable.
On these grounds, the High Court allowed the petitioner's plea and quashed the summons issued by the ACB.
Case Title: Bharat Bhushan Vs ACB Jammu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 15