An investigating officer cannot summon an advocate representing an accused to record a statement merely because they are acquainted with the case facts through professional duties, unless specific legal exceptions are met and approved by a superior officer.

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A.38215/2025 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, seeking quashing of the impugned notice dated 19.12.2025 issued by respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 94 and 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

4. Issue notice. The learned Special Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Let reply be filed by the respondents, with advance copy to the petitioner, before the next date of hearing.

5. The respondent no. 3 is directed to remain present in person on the next date of hearing before this Court.

6. List on 23.12.2025.

CRL.M.A. 38214/2025 (stay of impugned notice)

7. The case set out by the petitioner is that on 21.11.2025, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered an FIR bearing No. RC2212025E0016 against a company, namely Lord Mahavira Services India Private Limited and its directors, alleging misuse of SIM cards for cyber-criminal activities, some of which were alleged to have been issued by the said company.

8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on 05.12.2025, one of the directors of the accused company had approached the petitioner, who is an Advocate, seeking legal assistance in connection with the said FIR. It is contended that on 15.12.2025, in an effort to cooperate with the ongoing investigation, the accused company had deputed one of its staff members to the CBI office to submit certain documents. However, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) had allegedly refused to receive the documents and subjected the said staff member to harassment. Thereafter, the present petitioner, acting in his professional capacity of being an Advocate engaged on behalf of his client, had sent emails dated 15.12.2025 to respondent no. 3, who is the I.O. of the case enclosing some relevant documents pertaining to the investigation which had been sought from the accused.

9. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that on 17.12.2025, the petitioner had filed an application on behalf of one of the directors of the accused company before the learned Sessions Court, and the said director was granted interim protection on the same date. However, soon thereafter, respondent no. 3 had issued the impugned notice dated 19.12.2025 to the petitioner, who is an advocate of the accused against whom the present FIR has been registered, directing him to appear at the CBI office on 20.12.2025 along with the certified copies of the documents that had already been forwarded through the email dated 15.12.2025.

10. The learned SPP appearing for the CBI, on the other hand, submits that he may be granted time to file reply and that he will seek instructions in this regard as to why notice was issued to the petitioner.

11. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents, and has perused the material placed on record.

12. This Court takes note of the emails sent by the petitioner to respondent no. 3 on 15.12.2025, wherein the petitioner had stated