The court affirmed that notices issued under Section 179 of the BNSS are valid for investigative purposes and not subject to challenge if statutory provisions are followed.

JUDGMENT

1. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued a notice under Section 179 of the BNSS ( Section 160 Cr.PC.) for appearance with regard to Crime No.21 of 2024, which is registered under Sections 409 , 420 and 120(B) of the IPC. The CID Police Station, Mangalgiri, required the attendance of the petitioner on 28.03.2025 at 10.00 a.m., at the SIT Office, Office of Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, without fail, for the purpose of investigation.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that such a notice would not have been issued by the CID Police for the petitioner, who resides in Hyderabad at Jubilee Hills.

Section 179 of BNSS reads as follows:

"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 adjourning 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 this such person resides :

(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".

3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the CID Police can invoke Section 179 of the BNSS for the purpose of investigation to summon any witness who is within the territorial limits of the adjourning police station.

4. It is submitted that, at any rate, the jurisdictional police station of the petitioner cannot be considered as an adjourning police station for the CID to summon the petitioner for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.21 of 2024. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not named as an accused in the crime. The Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has rendered his services as an advisor to the State in IT-related issues and was never involved in the liquor policy or the beverages Corporation. However, on the alleged disclosure of some leader, the petitioner is now being implicated in a case to which he has no connection. The learned Counsel places reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Mathews Peter v. Assistant Police Inspector and others , 2002 Cri. LJ 1585, where the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the writ petition where on the premise that the notice under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C., could not have been issued by the Station House Officer, Samarth Police Station, to the petitioner, who resided within the jurisdictional Police Station of Panjagutta. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the judgment passed in Harmandeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others , where the Delhi High Court considered a similar issue, and the summons issued under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C., by the investigating officer could be issued only to an adjourning police station and not beyond. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Directorate of Enforcement and others v. State of West Bengal , where a similar view was taken.

5. The learned Counsel also submits that the petitioner is now required to appear as a witness; however, there is a possibility of implicating him as an accused. Therefore, the petitioner seeks the quashing of t