The Karnataka High Court recently annulled a notice from the Bengaluru police, which had summoned a journalist for a preliminary inquiry without filing a first information report (FIR) against him.
On July 19, Justice M. Nagaprasanna issued an order staying the notice issued under Section 41A of the now-repealed Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The notice, dated June 6, was sent by the sub-inspector of Amruthahalli Police Station to Tavaragi Prasad.
The Court also instructed the State government to develop guidelines for all Station House Officers (SHOs), informing them about the appropriate circumstances for issuing a notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which has replaced Section 41A of the CrPC.
Section 41A pertains to the notice of appearance before a police officer in situations where the arrest of a person is not necessary.
The Court further clarified that both the CrPC and BNSS require such notices to “contain the crime number” and specify the purpose for which a citizen is being summoned.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that while the notice can be sent electronically, the SHO must also attach a copy of the FIR with the notice.
''The duty of the Station House Officer would not stop at mentioning crime number, but he should also attach to the communication, a copy of the FIR, so registered against the notice,” the High Court said.
The Court was addressing a petition filed by Prasad, who challenged the June 6 notice and subsequent summons.
According to the order, Prasad initially received a WhatsApp message from the Amruthahalli Police Station on June 6, instructing him to appear at the station. When he requested the crime number and details of the summons, he received no response.
On June 10, Prasad received another WhatsApp message, again asking him to appear before the police. This time, the notice included a crime number but did not provide details about the crime or any other information related to the FIR.
In the previous hearing on June 11, Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the June 6 notice was inadequate and that the police had not followed proper procedures.
“The notice does not refer to any crime registered much less against the petitioner, for him to be summoned. A bald notice under Section 41A of the CrPC is issued to the petitioner,” the Court had said at the time.
On July 19, the Court annulled the June 6 notice but allowed the June 10 notice to stand.
However, it instructed the police to consider the Court's observations and execute such notices accordingly.
Senior Counsel M Aruna Shyam and advocate Suyog Herele E appeared for Tavaragi Prasad.
Government Pleader Harish Ganapathi appeared for the State government.
Case Title: Tavaragi Prasad vs State
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy