Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh W.P.A. 13248 of 2025 Jupiter Electric Mobility Private Limited & Anr.

versus The Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate of Pimpri Chinchwad & Ors.

For the Petitioners : Mr. Saptangsu Basu Mr. Anirban Ray Mr. Snehasish Sen Mr. D. Mukherjee Mr. Ayan Sarkar.

For the State of Maharashtra : Mr. A. Roy, Ld.G.P. Govt. of West Bengal, Mr.Dipanjan Datta,Ld.Sr. Advocate,Govt. of West Bengal, Mr. S. Banerjee.

For the respondent No.7 : Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin Mrs. Zainab Tahur Mr. Mohammed Adnan Lodi.

Heard On : 01.08.2025 Judgement On : 01.08.2025 Tirthankar Ghosh, J. :

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioners be kept with the record.

Petitioners have challenged the notice under Section 94 of the BNSS in connection with Bhosari Midc Police Station Crime No.307 of 2025. By the said notice, the police officer attached to Economic Offence Wing Pimpri Chinchwad, Maharashtra called for a series of documents as well as the personal attendance of the writ petitioners.

Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that since the provisions of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India approves the writ petition to be entertained by this Court he has challenged the notice issued under Section 94 of the BNSS to the limited extent of challenging the personal attendance of the present petitioners.

Learned senior advocate has further submitted that all the documents which were called for in the said notice have been sent to the police authorities and there are no complaints in respect of any of the documents which have been sent to the police authorities. Learned senior advocate thereafter draws the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 94 of the BNSS which is quoted below:

“Summons to produce document or other thing.

(1) Whenever any Court or any officer in charge of a police station considers that the production of any document, electronic communication, including communication devices, which is likely to contain digital evidence or other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Sanhita by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons or such officer may, by a written order, either in physical form or in electronic form, require the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order.

(2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document, or other thing shall be deemed to have complied with the requisition if he causes such document or thing to be produced instead of attending personally to produce the same.

(3) Nothing in this section shall be deemed-

(a) to affect sections 129 and 130 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 (13 of 1891); or (b) to apply to a letter, postcard, or other document or any parcel or thing in the custody of the postal authority.”

Emphasis has been laid on Sub-Section (2) of Section 94 of the BNSS.

Additionally, it has been contended that a commercial suit being T.S.(Com)10 of 2025 has been preferred by Jupiter Electric Mobility Private Limited which is pending before the learned Judge, Commercial Court at Alipore. Attention of the Court is drawn to the order dated 17.06.2025 wherein the learned commercial court was pleased to observe as follows:

“Hence, an ex parte ad interim order of injunction is hereby granted in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondent no.1, its men, agents, servants, representatives, assigns and all persons claiming through or under it, from in any manner interfering with or obstructing the business operations of the petitioner and/or disturbing the subsisting agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 relating to the manufacture, production and supply of