SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
V.D. Moorthy, S/o. N. Vishwanathan - Appellant 
Versus 
The State Of AP - Respondent 
Writ Petition No.22577 of 2025
Decided on : 22-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : T NAGARJUNA REDDY
For the Respondent: GP FOR HOME

Police authority to issue notice for attendance is restricted by jurisdiction, particularly safeguarding individuals over 60 or with health issues from coercive attendance at distant locations.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 179 - Writ of Mandamus sought to prevent coercive appearance before police - Court finds issuance of notice without jurisdiction as the petitioner resides outside the prescribed limits for notice - Provisions safeguard individuals over 60 years of age among others from undue coercion. (Paras 6, 10, 18, 20)

(B) Jurisdiction - Police cannot issue notice under Section 179 to individuals outside of jurisdiction - Legal obligation to attend notice is contingent upon residing within specified limits. (Paras 10, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a director aged over 60 from Noida, challenged the notice to appear before police in Guntur, alleging it violated his rights and was beyond jurisdiction. He was not an accused in the case.

Findings of Court:
The court held the police officer had no authority to compel the petitioner’s attendance at their location given he resided outside district limits. Police may examine the petitioner at his residence with prior notice.

Issues: The core issue was the jurisdiction of police under Section 179 of BNSS to require attendance from individuals residing beyond their jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled the notice exceeded authority, emphasizing the jurisdictional limitations imposed by Section 179 of BNSS, particularly for vulnerable individuals.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of; Police can examine the petitioner at his residence under stipulated terms.

Table of Content
1. factual overview of the case and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court’s issue for determination. (Para 6 , 7)
4. analysis of section 179 of bnss. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. conditions under which notice can be issued. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. age dispute regarding the petitioner. (Para 16)
7. court's determination of non-jurisdiction of notice issuance. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
8. court’s final decision on the writ petition. (Para 21)

ORDER :

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for:

“.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in abusing the provisions of BNSS and calling the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent office instead of examine the petitioner at his residence address given in the cause title or in any neutral place at Noida (UP) in the presence of his Advocates of his choice, under video and audio coverage in connection with Crime No.21/2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of the India and contrary to the provisions of BNSS , 2023 and consequently direct the respondent to examine the petitioner at his residence given in the cause title or in any neutral place at Noida(UP) in the presence of his Advocates of his choice, under video and audio coverage in connection with Crime No.21/2024 of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.”

Factual matrix of the case:

2. The C.I.D Police Station, Mangalagiri has registered Crime No.21 of 2024 dated 23.09.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 409 read with 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short, "IPC‟) corresponding to Sections 318 , 316(5) read with Section 61 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short " BNS ‟). Petitioner herein is not an Accused in the said crime. The Petitioner is the Director of Sigma Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited, residing in Noida, Utter Pradesh. In connection with the said crime, the Investigating Officer issued notice dated 15.08.2025 to the Petitioner under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short " BNS S) with a request to appear before him on 18.08.2025 for the purpose of investigation and also to produce some relevant documents. Thereafter, the Petitioner has received another notice dated 19.08.2025 with a request to attend before the S.I.T office at Vijayawada on 21.08.2025.

Arguments advanced at the Bar:

3. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sai Rohit, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for CID.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner has attended before the Investigating Officer at Mangalagiri twice in obedience to the notice served on him. Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner is residing in Noida, which is outside the jurisdiction of Respondent No.2. It is further submitted that Petitioner is aged above 65 years. Hence, Respondent No.2 has no authority to secure the presence of the Petitioner at Vijayawada by making a request in writing under Section 179 of BNSS . Learned counsel would further submit that Petitioner is suffering from severe health issues. He has been undergoing treatment for Cervical Radiculopathy and is advised not to travel and not to sit for a long time. Learned counsel would submit that, the Investigating Officer may examine the Petitioner at his residence by giving advance intimation to know his availability or at any other neutral place at Noida, in the presence of his Advocate. Learned counsel finally submits that the statement of the Petitioner may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means as per Section 180 of BNSS .

5. Learned Senior Counsel assisted by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for C.I.D, would submit that, the age of the Petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top