logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 062 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Criminal Petition No. 1880 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Parties : Gopal Krishna Agarwal & Others Versus The State of Telangana, Through PS EOW Cyberabad at Gachibowli & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: N. Vinesh Raj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor.
Date of Judgment : 13-02-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations, and Sections Mentioned:
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
- Sections 318(4), 316(2) read with 61(2) of BNS
- Section 35(3) of BNSS
- Section 179 of BNSS

2. Catch Words:
Not mentioned.

3. Summary:
The petitioners filed a criminal petition to quash notices issued under Section 179 of the BNSS, alleging procedural violations and wrongful issuance to accused persons. They contended that the investigating officer should have used Section 35(3) for notice and cited Supreme Court guidelines on arrest procedures. The prosecution admitted the mistake and offered to re‑issue the correct notice. The Court held that the notice under Section 179 to the accused was impermissible and ordered it set aside, while permitting the investigating officer to continue the investigation in compliance with the BNSS. No further merits were examined. The petition was disposed of with the above directions.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the notices dated 07.02.2026 issue by respondent No.2 under F.I.R.No.7 of 2026 to petitioner Nos.1 to 4 under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’).

2. Heard Mr. Sivaraju Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. N. Vinesh Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present crime. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) read with 61(2) of BNS are not attracted against the petitioners. The offences leveled against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment of less than seven years. However, the Investigating Officer, without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273), the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Md. Asfak Alam v. The State of Jharkhand & anr. (Crl.A.No.2207 of 2023) dated 31.07.2023, and also the circular issued by this Court in ROC.No.1399/SO/2023 dated 09.08.2023, is proceeding with the investigation and the same is contrary to law.

4. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer issued notice under Section 179 of BNSS to the petitioners on 07.02.2026 directing the petitioners to appear before the Investigating Officer along with relevant documents for the purpose of Investigation, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 179 of BNSS. The notice under Section 179 of BNSS ought not to have issued to the accused persons. The Investigating Officer is entitled to issue notice to the witnesses or any other person, not to the accused. Hence the impugned notice under Section 179 of BNSS on 07.02.2026 is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor basing upon the instructions given by the Inspector of Police, PS EOW Cyberabad at Gachibowli, who is physically present before the Court submitted that the Investigating Officer inadvertently issued the notice under Section 179 of BNSS, instead of issuing notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS. He further submitted that the Investigating Officer will issue notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and requested this Court that the petitioners may be directed to cooperate with the investigation.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has not opposed the above said submissions.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, without going into the other aspects of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned notice under Section 179 of BNSS on 07.02.2026 to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 is not permissible and the same is liable to be set aside. However, the Investigating Officer is granted liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with the provisions of BNSS.

8. Subject to the above directions, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal