Order on Board
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.
1. Since common facts and issues are involved in all these writ petitions, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. WPCR No.237 of 2026 is being taken as leading case as the issues and facts of all the cases as well as the date of notice issued to all the writ petitioners by the investigating officer are similar. 2 These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed by the respective petitioners seeking following reliefs:
In WPCR No.237 of 2026-
"10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue calling for records and quashing the Impugned Notices dated 01.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-4 colly), 03.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-5 colly), 07.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-6 colly) and 13.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-7 colly) arbitrarily and illegally issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 179 BNSS against the Petitioner, as the said notices are the product of severe high- handedness and a malafide attempt to illegally frame the Petitioner to extort a commercial settlement on behalf of the Complainant (ANNEXURE P-2), thereby blatantly violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus/certiorari do issue quashing the entire illegal and coercive proceedings actions, investigation, undertaken by the Respondent police authorities strictly against the Petitioner emanating from FIR No. 0148/2026 (ANNEXURE P-3).
10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing Respondent No. 2 (DGP) to initiate a strict Disciplinary Enquiry (DE) and take severe penal action against Respondent No. 5 (SP), Respondent No. 3 (SHO) and Respondent No. 4 (IO) for abusing their official position, acting as a recovery agent, coercing signatures, and unnecessarily pressurizing the company by illegally summoning the Petitioner.
10.4 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue directing the Respondents to take necessary action against Respondent No. 6 for misleading and misusing the state machinery."
In WPCR No.242 of 2026-
"10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue calling for records and quashing the Impugned Notices dated 01.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-5 (colly)), 03.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-6 (colly)), 07.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-7 (colly)) and 13.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-8 (colly)) arbitrarily and illegally issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 179 BNSS against the Petitioner, as the said notices are the product of severe high- handedness and a malafide attempt to illegally frame the Petitioner to extort a commercial settlement on behalf of the Complainant), thereby blatantly violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus/certiorari do issue quashing the entire actions and proceedings undertaken by Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioner emanating from FIR No. 0148/2026.
10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing Respondent No. 2 (DGP) to initiate a strict Disciplinary Enquiry (DE) and take severe penal action against and Respondent No. 5 (SP), Respondent No. 3 (SHO) and respondent no. 4 (IO) for abusing their official position, acting as a recovery agent, and unnecessarily pressurizing the company by illegally summoning its directors.
10.4 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue directing the Respondents to take necessary action against the respondent no. 6 for misleading and misusing the state machinery."
In WPCR No.239 of 2026-
"10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue calling for records and quashing the Impugned Notices dated 01.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-5 Colly), 03.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-6 Colly), 07.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-7 Colly) and 13.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-8 Colly) arbitrarily and illegally issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 179 BNSS against the Petitioner, as the said notices are the product of severe high- handedness and a malafide attempt to illegally frame the Petitioner to extort a commercial settlement on behalf of the Complainant (ANNEXURE P-2), thereby blatantly violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus/certiorari do issue quashing the entire actions and proceedings undertaken by Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioner and other Directors of OFB Tech Limited emanating from FIR No. 0148/2026.
10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing Respondent No. 2 (DGP) and Respondent No. 4 (SP) to initiate a strict Disciplinary Enquiry (DE) and take severe penal action against Respondent No. 3 (SHO) for abusing his official position, acting as a recovery agent, and unnecessarily pressurizing the company by illegally summoning its directors"
In WPCR No.238 of 2026-
"10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue calling for records and quashing the Impugned Notices dated 01.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-5 Colly), 03.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-6 Colly), 07.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-7 Colly), and 13.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-8 Colly) arbitrarily and illegally issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 179 BNSS against the Petitioner, as the said notices are the product of severe high- handedness and a malafide attempt to illegally frame the Petitioner to extort a commercial settlement on behalf of the Complainant (ANNEXURE P-2), thereby blatantly violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus/certiorari do issue quashing the entire actions and proceedings undertaken by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner and other Directors of OFB Tech Limited emanating from FIR No. 0148/2026.
10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing Respondent No. 2 (DGP) to initiate a strict Disciplinary Enquiry (DE) and take severe penal action against and Respondent No. 5 (SP), Respondent No. 3 (SHO) and respondent no. 4 (IO) for abusing their official position, acting as a recovery agent, and unnecessarily pressurizing the company by illegally summoning its directors.
10.4 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing the Respondents not to take any coercive steps whatsoever against the Petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0148/2026 registered at P.S. Mandir Hasaud.
10.5 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue directing the Respondents to take necessary action against the respondent no. 6 for misleading and misusing the state machinery."
In WPCR No.241 of 2026-
"10.1 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue calling for records and quashing the Impugned Notices dated 01.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-4 COLLY), 03.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-5 COLLY), 07.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-6 COLLY) and 13.04.2026 (ANNEXURE P-7 COLLY) arbitrarily and illegally issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 179 BNSS against the Petitioner.
10.2 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus/certiorari do issue quashing the entire actions and proceedings undertaken by Respondent No. 3 against the Petitioner emanating from FIR No. 0148/2026.
10.3 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing Respondent No. 2 (DGP) to initiate a strict Disciplinary Enquiry (DE) and take severe penal action against Respondent No. 5 (SP), Respondent No. 3 (SHO) and respondent no. 4 (IO) for abusing their official position, acting as a recovery agent, and unnecessarily pressurizing the company by illegally summoning its directors.
10.4 A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of certiorari do issue directing the Respondents to take necessary action against the respondent no. 6 for misleading and misusing the state machinery."
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners are the Chief Business Officers/Director/CEO of the OFB Tech. Limited and engaged in business of platform facilitating raw material procurement. Their business is operating through out the country. They have zero involvement, oversight, or direct control over day to day logistics, physical loading or localized transit of individual material shipments handled by the third party logisticians. The respondent No.6- Shreejikrupa Project Ltd. Engineers And Contractors, placed a purchase order on 28.02.2026 with OBT Tech Ltd. for supply of 220 MT of TMT Iron bar for construction of Women Hostel in Sector-16, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The said consignment was dispatched through an independent third party logistic partner and when the said consignment was reached to Raipur between 8-10 th March, 2026, the complainant alleged about shortage of 10 MT of TMT iron bars from its actual ordered consignment valuing approximately Rs.6,90,000/-. The complainant/respondent No.6 made a complaint to the police also and then FIR being Crime No.148 of 2026 was registered on 20.03.2026 at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, for the offence under Sections 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 against the drivers of Trucks bearing registration Nos. CG-04-JC-6215 and CG-04-MS-9932 and others. It is also alleged that the body of Truck was manipulated and secret chamber was prepared in which pig iron were kept so that the weight of the consignment may not differ. The petitioners are not named nor any allegations have been made against them. It is also pleadings in the writ petitions that despite FIR identifying the Truck Drivers as the culprits and having knowledge through e-mail that the matter was handled by regional operational staff, the respondent No.3, Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahdir Hasaud, started harassing the petitioners and issued notices to them under Section 179 of BNSS 2023 who are Chief Business Officer/CEO/Director of the company. On 01.04.2026 the respondent No.3 issued the impugned notice through e-mail dated 02.04.2026 directing the petitioners to physically present at Mandir Hasaud Police Station. Again on 03.04.2026 reminder notice was issued through e-mail. In the said notice, the petitioners were alleged to be the accused and from the language of the said notices it clearly transpires that the respondent No.3 were intended to made them accused in the offence and the petitioners have been called to the police station for further proceeding. Again another reminder notice were sent on 07.04.2026 by the respondent No.3 to the petitioners company in the same format. The reminder notice was again sent on 13.04.2026 through e-mail for further proceeding and directed them to appear on 19.04.2026 at Police Station Mandir Hasaud. The earlier notices were not received by the petitioners as the same were landed in spam folder of the company's finance department. On 13.04.2026 the respondent No.3 directed freezing of bank account No.9913203430 belonging to OXYZO Financial Services Ltd. which amounts to coordinate attack on the executive's personal liberty and corporate groups finance for commercial extortion. When the notice was came to know to the petitioner's company on 07.04.2026, they requested for time till 11.04.2026. On 11.04.2026 the authorized representative of the company appeared before the police station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, but their presence have been ignored by the respondent No.3. On 17.04.2026 the petitioners submitted a detailed written statement to the respondent No.3 in which he explained all the transactions made by them. The respondent No.4, investigating officer, started coercing the authorized representative of the petitioner company to sign the statement by unilaterally alteration in the statement made by them. All these sequence of events are violative of Section 179(1) of BNSS and the said notices issued by the respondent No.3 are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions would submit that the action of the respondent No.3 against the petitioners are arbitrary and with malafide intention. Without any nexus appeared in the FIR, calling by investigating officer for further proceeding to the person from beyond their jurisdictional police station is illegal. In the FIR No.148 of 2026 the petitioners were not named as accused nor any allegation have been made against them that they are actively participated in the alleged offence. The said FIR is against the drivers of the Truck through which the consignment was delivered. E-mail dated 11.03.2026 clearly demonstrate that the complainant/respondent No.6 was fully aware that the Drivers of the Trucks committed the breakdown scam, yet , they tried to extort commercial deductions from the petitioners with the collusion of the police persons. The unlawful freezing of the bank account of OXYZO Financial Services Ltd. vide letter dated 13.04.2026 further demonstrates that the police authorities are acting as a recovery agent of respondent No.6. Section 179 of BNSS is meant to call witnesses who acquainted with the facts of the case. The petitioners who are residing at Gurugram, Haryana, does not have any personal knowledge with the said scam of steal by a third party driver in Raipur especially when the petitioners company presented the actual regional sales representative before the police authorities on 11.04.2026. The impugned notices are without jurisdiction and powers of respondent No.3 for the reason that language of Section 179(1) of BNSS restricts the police officer to issue notice requiring attendance only to a person who is within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. The petitioners are resident of Gurugram, Haryana which does not fall within or adjoining with the territorial limits of Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur. The reply submitted by the authorized representative is sufficient to disclose their stand and the personal presence of petitioners at Police Station Mandir Hasaud are not required. Therefore, the impugned notices issued to the petitioners dated 01.04.2026, 03.04.2026, 07.04.2026 and 13.04.2026 are liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and would submit that on the complaint made by the respondent No.6 with respect to short supply of TMT iron bars from the actual ordered consignment at the work site of Women Hostel in Nawa Raipur, the FIR being Crime No.148 of 2026 has been registered. The ordered goods were supplied through Krishna Logistics, GND Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Raipur on 07.03.2026 and 41.770 MT Iron bar were loaded in Truck No.CG-04-JC-6215, 37.950 MT Iron bar were loaded in Truck No.CG-04-JC-2484 and also 32.080 MT Iron bar were loaded in Truck No.CG-04-JC-1381 on 08.03.2026 and the said Truck No. CG-04-JC- 2484 reached to its destination on 09.03.2026 and the consignment were unloaded. At the time of unloading consignment its weight was found correct, however, a suspicion of shortage in the quantity was raised on the unloaded goods on 10.03.2026. Thereafter, on Truck No.CG-04-JC-6215 came for unloading the goods and on being verification it was found to be less and also found that 5 MT of pig iron were kept inside a box made in body of vehicle by which actual weight of iron TMT bar reduced to that extent, however, on total weight of TMT bar came to its correct weight. The cost of said 5 MT iron bar comes to Rs.3,45,000/- and since on 08.03.2026 and 09.03.2026 the Trucks were unloaded, the shortage of TMT bars was quantified to 10 MT which comes to Rs.6,90,000/-. The bills of iron rod consignment was not received and the respondent No.6 were defrauded by the company through which TMT iron bars were purchased and supplied. Immediately after registration of FIR, the statement of complainant and other witnesses were recorded, the Trucks were seized in abandoned condition from the premises of respondent No.6. On 03.05.2026 the Driver of Truck No.CG-04-MS-9932 was arrested and the owner of said Truck was arrested on 24.03.2026.
6. He would further submit that the complainant gave information with respect to present petitioner along with document and placed the work order to the petitioner company for supply of iron TMT bar to the complainant construction company and then the respondent No.3 issued notices under Section 179 BNSS, 2023 to the petitioners to provide relevant information with respect to work order and quantify supplied to the complainant. The impugned notices were issued only to unearth the true facts pursuant to FIR of Crime No.148 of 2026. He would also submit that inadvertently the notice has been mentioned under Section 179 BNSS whereas it should be sent under Section 35(3) of BNSS. The respondents No.3&4 in discharge of their official duty to investigate the crime registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, issued notices to the petitioners. The petitioners sent their authorized representative to police station Mandir Hasaud who disclosed all the relevant information with respect to subject FIR, however, they have not submitted the entire information with respect to subject transaction between the parties. The offence has been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of Mandir Hasaud Police Station and therefore the police authority of said police station issued notices to the petitioners with an intent to gather information from the petitioners with respect to subject transaction which is within their jurisdictional competence and the petitioners are required to submit the requisite information as sought by police authority in respect of Crime No.148 of 2026 registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, Raipur. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the police authority by issuing notice to the petitioners. Therefore, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 would submit that when the short supply of consignment of iron TMT bar were found and cheating was said by the complainant, they lodged complaint to the police and after registration of FIR, the police is investigating the matter. Initially 10 MT of iron bar were found shortage the cost of which comes to Rs.6,90,000/- with respect to short supply by two Trucks and the said short supply is to be investigated with respect to all earlier supply made by the company to which the order was placed. The manner in which the offence is committed, it would not be possible for the Drivers of Truck alone to commit the said offence, but it smells involvement of other accused persons including the officers of the company. The FIR requires detail and thorough investigation for which the police authority issued notices to the petitioners to submit their reply and to place relevant material. The police authority is competent to issue notice under Section 179 of BNSS to any person who is having information about the offence. The petitioner may appear and submit their reply before the police authority.
He would also draw attention of this court that in the same FIR the police authorities have freezed the bank account of OXYZO Financial Services Ltd. and then the said OXYZO Financial Services Ltd. also filed WPCR No.231 of 2026 before this court and the document enclosed in the said writ petition demonstrate that the said firm OXYZO Financial Services Ltd. filed WP(Cr) before the Delhi High Court in which on 13.04.2026 an interim order was passed staying the effect and operation of the letter dated 10.04.2026 by which the bank account of OXYZO Financial Services Ltd. was freezed. Despite that, the bank account was freezed vide letter dated 13.04.2026 and later on the account was defreezed and an amount of Rs. 43,38,375/- was put on hold by the bank on account of suspected transaction and loss incurred to the complainant. The said state of investigation demonstrate that the police authority have complete facts of cheating committed by the drivers of Trucks in which the other persons are also involved. The investigating officer issued notices only to collect evidence with respect to offence and there is no illegality or infirmity in the said notices. Therefore, all the writ petitions may be dismissed.
8. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition petitions.
9. The core issue involved in these writ petitions are issuance of notice to the petitioners under Section 179 of BNSS, 2023, therefore, it is necessary to notice here the provisions of Section 179 BNSS, which reads as under:
"179. 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 above the age of sixty years or a woman or a mentally or physically disabled person or a person with acute illness shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such person resides:
Provided further that if such person is willing to attend at the police station, such person may be permitted so to do. (2) The State Government may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of the reasonable expenses of every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any place other than his residence."
10. From a plain language of Section 179(1) BNSS, it transpires that the police officer may issue notice for attendance before himself to any person who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case and require attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. The proviso to Section 179 BNSS provides that no woman or any male person above the age of 60 years of physically disabled person or with acute illness shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such person resides. All the petitioners in these writ petitions are resident of Sector-6, Gurugram, Haryana and petitioner in WPCR No.241 of 2026 is a woman who is Director of OFB Tech Limited. It further transpires that the authorized representative of the company where the petitioners are Chief Business Officer/CEO/Director, have also submitted their reply on 17.04.2026 and submitted that on 11.04.2026 the authorized representative of the company submitted all the requisite information as sought for by the police authority with respect to subject transaction, however, they were not permitted to participate in the proceeding and their statement have not been recorded. The investigation requires information from company and not from any particular person. When the authorized representative of the company said to have submitted their information with respect to subject transaction, the police authority was required to accept their submissions and documents and issuance of notice to a particular person of the company to submit the information appears to be intentional. Calling of petitioners by the police authority who are residing outside the jurisdiction of the police station where the FIR has been registered and offence has been committed, to the jurisdictional police station, is not required particularly when the said persons from whom information was sought, had already represented through their authorized representative of the company before the police. Further, no woman shall be required to attend at any place other than the place in which such person resides as provided under proviso to Section 179 BNSS, 2023, yet the police authorities have issued notices to the petitioner in WPCR No.241 of 2026.
11. It is also necessary to take note here that freezing of bank account of OXYZO Financial Services Ltd. have been defreezed by the police authorities vide order dated 27.04.2026 and an amount of Rs.43,38,375/- was kept in hold by the police authority and both the said orders dated 13.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 have been quashed by this court in WPCR No.231 of 2026. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the police authorities have exceeded its jurisdiction in issuance of notice to the petitioners under Section 179 of BNSS 2023 calling their personal appearance before Mandir Hasaud Police Station to submit necessary information with respect to subject transaction.
12. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that notices issued to the petitioners calling them for their personal appearance before Police Station, Mandir Hasaud, requires interference and accordingly the notices issued to the petitioners on 01.04.2026, 03.04.2026,07.04.2026 and 13.04.2026 are hereby quashed.
13. The investigating agency may however proceed with the case in accordance with law. It is expected that prosecution agency shall conduct a fair and impartial investigation by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
14. With the aforesaid observations and directions, all the writ petitions are allowed.
 |
This Product is Licensed to , |