TAVARAGI RAJASHEKHAR SHIVA PRASAD AND STATE OF KARNATAKA CASE NO: WRIT PETITION NO.15125 OF 2024
FACTS: The petitioner challenges a notice dated June 6, 2024, issued by the 4th respondent, a Sub-Inspector of Police at Amruthahalli Police Station, under Section 41(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The petitioner, a distinguished senior journalist with a career spanning reputable media outlets including ETV, TV-9, Samaya TV, Janasri Bharath-1, and Vijaya Karnataka, received the notice via WhatsApp. The notice required him to appear at the police station on June 7, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. The petitioner sought clarification regarding the reasons for the summons and the use of WhatsApp for its transmission. The 4th respondent did not disclose the reason for the notice or the crime associated with it. Despite further inquiries at the police station through his legal representative, no details regarding the underlying crime were provided. As a result, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief.
ISSUE: Is a party required to appear before the police if a summons issued under Section 35 of the BNSS lacks a crime number?
OBSERVATION: The Karnataka High Court ruled that if a notice issued under Section 35 of the BNSS does not specify the crime number, the alleged offence, or reference to an FIR, the notice is not obliged to comply with the summons, and no coercive action may be taken against them. The Court further directed the state government to formulate guidelines and a checklist for police officers, akin to those established in other jurisdictions. Until such guidelines are issued, any notice under Section 35 of the BNSS must include the crime number and details of the alleged offence and may be communicated either through conventional methods or electronically.
