THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11110 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), by the petitioner seeking to quash (i) the notice dated 23.08.2025 issued under Section 94 of BNSS by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Division, Mancherial, Telangana, in relation to FIR No. 219 of 2025, and (ii) the letter dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Station House Officer, Police Station CCS, Mancherial.

2. Heard Mr.Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not an accused, even as per the contents of the allegations in the FIR, and his name is not reflected as an accused therein. It is further submitted that the police issued a While the FIR was registered on 23.08.2025, the police issued a letter on 22.08.2025 itself, directing the petitioner to produce certain details pertaining to the pledging of gold by four individuals at their branch. The letter also stated that, during verification, if any borrowings are found, the institution is required to furnish the details of such borrowings to the investigating agency, and that they are not to release any such pledged property to the customers without the knowledge or notice of the police, as it may be required for the purpose of investigation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the notice dated 23.08.2025 was also issued to the petitioner under Section 94 of the BNSS, requesting the institution to furnish details of five loan account holders for the purpose of further investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's institution is neither named as an accused nor is in any way connected with the allegations made in the complaint. It is further submitted that, even during the course of investigation, the police cannot impose any restrictions on the petitioner's trade He, therefore, prayed for quashing of both the letter and the notice issued by the investigating agency.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the letter was issued prior to the registration of the FIR. However, the notice under Section 94 of the BNSS was issued on 23.08.2025, which is the date of registration of the FIR. He, therefore, prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders.

6. The record discloses that the petitioner is not named as an accused and is, in fact, a Non-Banking Financial Company registered with the Reserve Bank of India, offering financial services. A perusal of the complaint does not disclose any involvement of the petitioner, and the FIR also does not name the petitioner as an accused. The FIR is dated 23.08.2025, whereas the letter by which the petitioner is aggrieved is dated 22.08.2025 i.e., prior to the registration of the FIR. While the police have the power to investigate pursuant to any complaint or upon registration of a crime, they cannot address any communication Therefore, the letter dated 22.08.2025 is non-est in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the said letter is hereby quashed.

7. With regard to the notice issued under Section 94 of BNSS dated 23.08.2025 in pursuance of the FIR, the authorities are empowered to inquire into the loan accounts and other details pertaining to the accused. Since the notice was issued after the registration of the FIR, no infirmity is found in the said document. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel regarding the notice cannot be accepted.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is partly allowed to the extent of quashing the letter dated 22.08.2025.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________________

JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Dated 16 .09.2025 lk