Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Gummalla Satyanarayana – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 23443 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Learned Counsel
For the Respondents: Sri G. Aniketh Reddy
Notice under Section 94 of BNSS cannot be issued without specifying an offense and following due procedure.
Headnote:The petitioners challenge the legality of notice issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by respondent No.3 without detailing any offense. The court finds the notice impermissible and sets it aside, while allowing for a lawful enquiry into the related matrimonial disputes as laid down by the Apex Court. The petition is disposed of granting liberty for proper investigation under the stipulated guidelines.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. improper notice issued under bnss. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's directive for lawful procedures in investigations. (Para 4) |
| 3. final ruling sets aside improper notice. (Para 5) |
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in harassing the petitioners, threatening them to appear at the police station, and issuing the notice dated 01.08.2025 under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 ( BNSS ), as illegal.
3. Respondent No.3 has served a notice under Section 94 of BNSS , dated 01.08.2025, on the petitioners without mentioning any offence, merely asking them to appear before her. The notice refers to Petition No.88 dated 27.07.2025; however, the details of the petition, including the name of the complainant, are not mentioned in the said notice. Without registration of a crime, respondent No.3 cannot issue notice under Section 94 of BNSS directing the petitioners to appear before her.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 4 are in-laws of respondent No.5. Petitioner No.2 is the brother of petitioner No.1, and petitioner No.3 is the wife of petitioner No.2. It appears that there are matrimonial disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.5. If respondent No.3 received any complaint from respondent No.5 with regard to the said matrimonial disputes, she has to conduct enquiry and also the investigation strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the BNSS and also the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh , [(2014) 2 SCC 1]. However, without doing so, respondent No.3 has issued the said notice dated 01.08.2025 to the petitioners under Section 94 of the BNSS and the same is impermissible in law and is contrary to the principles However, without doing so, respondent No.3 has issued the said notice dated 01.08.2025 to the petitioners under Section 94 of the BNSS and the same is impermissible in law and is contrary to the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Shyamlal Mohanlal Choski , [AIR 1965 SC 1251]
5. In the light of the above discussion, the writ petition is disposed of and the notice dated 01.08.2025 issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioners under Section 94 of the BNSS , is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to respondent No.3 to conduct an enquiry/investigation into the complaint made by respondent No.5, strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down under the BNSS and also in compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari (supra). The petitioners shall cooperate with respondent No.3 in conducting enquiry. There shall be no order as to costs.
