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 2^nd 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 'BNSS) 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 Petitioner is 65 years, is factually incorrect in the light of the medical record, which shows that he is 64 years old. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that, the provisos appended to Section 179(1) of BNSS enable the Police Officer making an investigation to issue an order in writing to securethe presence of any person beyond his jurisdiction. However, such person, who is ordered to appear before the Police Officer can express his unwillingness to attend. Learned Senior Counsel further emphasizes that, in su