Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
V.D. Moorthy, S/o. N. Vishwanathan – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP – Respondent
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
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.
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.
Summons under Section 179 BNSS cannot be issued during preliminary enquiry without FIR registration, as power exercisable only during investigation commencing post-FIR.
(1) Arrest by a Police Officer is a mere statutory discretion which facilitates him to conduct proper investigation, in the form of collection of evidence and shall not be termed as mandatory.(2) Arr....
The requirement of personal attendance in police investigations under Section 94 of the BNSS is upheld to ensure comprehensive inquiries.
Public servants are not immune from prosecution for criminal acts committed outside the scope of their official duties, and FIR registration is mandatory when a cognizable offense is reported.
Police cannot summon an advocate in their professional capacity, as it infringes on client confidentiality and legal representation rights.
Prospective accused cannot challenge the direction for F.I.R. registration and investigation before cognizance, affirming no locus standi in such cases.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
