THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.12207 of 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused seeking to quash the notice dated 11.08.2025 issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Khammam.

2. Heard Sri P.Dheeraj Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the police have sent the notice under Section 35 (3) of BNSS to the petitioner through WhatsApp, which is not permissible in the eye of law and that the Apex Court has laid down the principle in respect of issuance of notices under Section 35(3) of BNSS in Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2025 INSC 909 and further the BNSS does not permit service of notice under Section 35(3) through WhatsApp or any other electronic mode. He further submitted

that after sending the impugned notice through WhatsApp, the police are regularly harassing the petitioner with threat of arrest and therefore, prayed to quash the notice and also the proceedings against the petitioner in the crime.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Maharashtra and that the police have sent notice through WhatsApp. He further submitted that admittedly, it is not a proper form of service, but however, just for the reason of improper service of notice through WhatsApp, the proceedings cannot be quashed and that the process can be regularized by directing the notice to be served in a proper manner.

5. Perused the record.

6. The case of the de facto complainant is that the de facto complainant has invested an amount of Rs.2,60,00,000/- between 01.03.2022 and 09.05.2023 at the instance of one Mr. Janapala Tagoor with the expectation of good returns by playing live streaming interconnecting services and it is alleged that the aforementioned money was transferred to the bank account of the persons, who are connected with the Streamkar App and to the said firm and also to the account of said Janapala Tagoor. The petitioner herein is the proprietor of Streamerzone, having its registered office at Kalyan, Maharashtra. Thus, serious allegations involving huge amounts through online App are made against the petitioner. Though the petitioner seeks to quash the notice issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (cited supra), wherein it was held that:

“Service of notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 needs to be carried out in a manner that protects this substantive right, as non-compliance with the notice can have a drastic effect on the liberty of an individual. The Legislature, in its wisdom, has specifically excluded the service of a notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 from the abmit of procedures permissible through electronic communication, that have been delineated under Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023…..The restrictions imposed by the Legislature on the use of electronic communication, to only certain procedures, precludes the use of electronic communication for any other procedure, for which it has not been specifically permitted by the BNSS, 2023.”

7. The Apex Court has further explained that a notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 does not fall within the same category as a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023 for the simple reason that a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023 has no immediate bearing on the liberty of an individual in case of its non-compliance. However, a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 could have a immediate bearing on the liberty of the individual in case of its non- compliance as laid down under Section 35(6) of the BNSS, 2023.

8. Thus, admittedly, the notice under Sec