Notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS must adhere to statutory procedures, including proper service and detail inclusion; electronic service is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

ANJAN MONI KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Mow and Mr. I. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Tado, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 praying for setting aside and quashing of the purported notice under Section 35 (3) of the sent to the petitioner, vide an Electronic message, vide No. Naharlagun/PS-23/24 dated 22.10.2025 from Officer-in-Charge, Naharlagun Police Station to Officer-in-Charge, Tezu Police Station, requesting to direct the petitioner to appear in Naharlagun Police Station in connection with an enquiry, vide Naharlagun PS GD Entry No.022/25 dated 22.10.2025 on or before 25.10.2025 without fail for the purpose of enquiry.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner received an Electronic notice dated 22.10.2025 from the respondent No.6 purportedly under Section 35 (3) of BNSS containing WT message No. NLG/PS-23/24 dated 22.10.2025 from Officer-in-Charge, Naharlagun Police Station to Officer-in-Charge Tezu Police Station to appear in Naharlagun Police Station in connection with an enquiry, vide NLG PS GD Entry No. 022/2025 on or before 25.10.2025 without fail for the purpose of enquiry.The aforesaid notice was not physically served to the petitioner by the respondent No. 6 but was served electronically by Whatsapp without any details of any FIR or complaint and therefore, the impugned Electronic notice dated 22.10.2025 under (3) of cannot sustained under the law. However, since the petitioner was not aware of any allegations about him or the contents of any FIR or complaint lodged at Naharlagun Police Station, on 25.10.2025, the petitioner sent his legal counsel to obtain the certified copy of the FIR or Complaint from the Naharlagun Police Station but the Investigating Officer, namely, N. Rama, SI, intimated that he would not be able to provide any information regarding the copy of the FIR/ complaint and he informed the legal counsel to contact the Officer-in- Charge of Naharlagun Police Station. Since the Officer-in-Charge was not available on that day, on the next date, the aforesaid legal counsel went to the Naharlagun Police Station again on 26.10.2025 and when requested the Officer-in-Charge, he denied to supply the copy of the complaint stating that since the case has not been registered, the copy of the complaint cannot be supplied. The Officer-in-Charge intimated the aforesaid legal counsel that the petitioner can come to Naharlagun Police Station whenever, he is free.

4. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner without having any option, has filed the instant Criminal Petition to quash the aforesaid notice as the aforesaid notice is not served on him in terms of the settled law and the same is not issued in the right form as prescribed under Section 35 (3) of BNSS .

5. Mr. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since there is no complaint filed, as yet, as has been intimated by the concerned Officer-in-Charge, a notice under Section 35 (3) of the BNSS could not have been issued to the petitioner. He submits that a notice under (3) can be issued only when a complaint has been made against the person or credible information has been received or reasonable suspicion determines that a person may have committed a cognizable offence. In the instant case, since there is no complaint registered, there is no question of any commission of cognizable offence, as yet and therefore, the notice under (3) is not in the terms of the laid down provisions under of the and hence, the same is not sustainable under the law. He