SIDDHI AGENCIES vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025
®


CNR: KAHC010676422025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 31910 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 31320 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)



IN W.P.NO.31910/2025

BETWEEN


1. SHIVA ENTERPRISES

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
PLOT NO. 5J ( PART-I )
II PHASE, ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL
AREA
KIADB TUMKUR
KARNATAKA 572106
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS

2. ATUL LAKRA-PARTNER





S/O JAGADISH LAKRA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
80 FEET ROAD, TUDA LAYOUT
SIRA GATE TUMKUR
KARNATAKA 572106

3. ROHIT VATS-PARTNER
S/O JASMER SINGH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
TUNGABHADRA BLOCK,
NEAR HMS SCHOOL, TUMKUR
KARNATAKA 572106
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GAUTAM S. BARADWAJ., ADVOCATE FOR

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


SRI. GOUDAR PRASHANTH FAKKERAGOUDA., ADVOCATES)


AND

1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
HUTATMA RAJGURU CHOWK
MADAM CAMA ROAD
OPPOSITE MANTRALAYA
MUMBAI 400032

2. STATE OF MAHARASTRA
THROUGH VADGAON POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE
OFFICER
DISTRICT KOLHAPUR
PIN-416112.

3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
TUMKUR RURAL POLICE STATION
TUMKUR KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PIN-572101.


….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFER SHAH AND
SRI. PANINI A.H., AGA FOR R3;
R1 & R2 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 NOT TO
HARASS THE PETITIONERS OR INTERFERE WITH THEIR LAWFUL BUSINESS
UNDER THE GARB OF INVESTIGATION BASED ON THE CASE REGISTERED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - VADGAON POLICE STATION AGAINST THIRD
PARTIES BEING CRIME NO. 446/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 59, 30(2)(A), 27 (3)(D), 27(3)(E), 26(2)(IV), 26(2)(I) OF
FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT OF 2006 AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS
275, 274, 223, 123 OF BNS 2023 AT ANNEXURE- B.AND ETC.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



IN W.P.NO.31320/2025
BETWEEN


1. SIDDHI AGENCIES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
OFFICE AT PLOT NO. 75,76,77, AND 78,
ND
II PHASE, ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
K.I.A.D.B., TUMKUR
KARNATAKA - 572106.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS

2. MAQSOOD AHAMED KHAN- PARTNER
S/O RAHAMAN KHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
JS PALYA KESARMUDU (POST), TUMKUR
KARNATAKA – 572101

3. NAVEEN U - PARTNER
S/O UMA SHANKAR S
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
TH
NO. 133, 10 MAIN, KALLAPA BLOCK,
SRI NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH,
BANGALORE KARNATAKA -560050
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. GAUTAM S. BARADWAJ., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. GOUDAR PRASHANTH FAKKERAGOUDA., ADVOCATES)

AND


1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT
NEW ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING
HUTATMA RAJGURU CHOWK
MADAM CAMA ROAD
OPPOSITE MANTRALAYA
MUMBAI 400032


2. STATE OF MAHARASTRA
THROUGH VADGAON POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE
OFFICER
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


DISTRICT KOLHAPUR
PIN-416112.


3. STATE OF KARNATAKA
TUMKUR RURAL POLICE STATION
TUMKUR KARNATAKA-572101
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

….RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFER SHAH AND
SRI. PANINI A.H., AGA FOR R3;
R1 & R2 SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER OF WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 NOT TO
HARASS THE PETITIONERS OR INTERFERE WITH THEIR LAWFUL BUSINESS
UNDER THE GARB OF INVESTIGATION BASED ON THE CASE REGISTERED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - VADGAON POLICE STATION AGAINST THIRD
PARTIES BEING CRIME NO. 446/2025 UNDER ANNEXURE- B.AND ETC.

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.09.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CAV ORDER


1. The petitioners in W.P.No.31910/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(i) Grant an order of Writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No.2 not to harass the
Petitioners or interfere with their lawful business
under the garb of investigation based on the case
registered by the Respondent No.2 - Vadgaon Police
Station against third parties being Crime No.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


446/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
59, 30(2)(a), 27 (3)(d), 27(3)(e), 26(2)(iv), 26(2)(i)
of Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 and also
under Sections 275, 274, 223, 123 of BNS 2023 at
Annexure- B.

(ii) Direct the Respondent No. 2, State of maharastra-
Police to follow the laid down procedure under the law
in the matter of investigation in another State (i.e.
Karnataka herein)

(iii) Grant such other relief/s that are deemed fit
under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.



2. The petitioners in W.P.No.31320/2025 are before this
Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(i) Grant an order of Writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondent No.2 not to harass the
Petitioners or interfere with their lawful business
under the garb of investigation based on the case
registered by the Respondent No.2 - Vadgaon Police
Station against third parties being Crime No.
446/2025 under Annexure- B.

(ii) Direct the Respondent No. 2, to follow the laid
down procedure under the law in the matter of
investigation in another State.

(iii) Grant such other relief/s that are deemed fit
under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.


Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


Facts in WP No.31320/2025:

3. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm
engaged in the business of trading in pan masala and
chewing tobacco, operating from Plot Nos. 75 to 78,
II Phase, Antharasanahalli Industrial Area, KIADB,
Tumkur, Karnataka. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are its
partners. Petitioner No. 1 claims to be a licensed
trader/stockist/consignment and forwarding (CNF)
agent for pan masala and tobacco products within
the State of Karnataka, engaged in their further sale
and distribution to dealers.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the sale of pan
masala and chewing tobacco is permitted in the
States of Karnataka, Kerala and Goa, as well as in
the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
According to them, the products are supplied by the
manufacturers to traders/stockists/CNF agents such
as petitioner No. 1, who distribute the same to
dealers, from whom the products pass through
wholesalers and retailers before reaching the
consumers. The petitioners contend that, once the
products are sold to dealers and distributors,
petitioner No. 1 has no control over their subsequent
dealings or the further movement of the products.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



5. It is further contended that, on 19.08.2025, the
officers of Vadgaon Police Station, Kolhapur District,
Maharashtra, purportedly acting on information
received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Jaysingpur Division, intercepted a truck at Kagni Toll
Naka, Hatkanangale, Kolhapur, on the Bengaluru–
Pune Highway, on suspicion that it was transporting
prohibited tobacco products. Upon inspection, the
officers allegedly found pan masala and chewing
tobacco manufactured in Karnataka and seized the
same on the ground that the manufacture and sale of
such products were prohibited in the State of
Maharashtra.

6. On 20.08.2025, a police constable lodged a
complaint against unknown persons before
respondent No. 2, pursuant to which FIR in Crime
No. 446/2025 was registered for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 59, 30(2)(a), 27(3)(d),
27(3)(e), 26(2)(iv) and 26(2)(i) of the Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘ FSS Act’ ) and Sections 275, 274, 223 and 123
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘ BNS’ ).
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



7. The petitioners further contend that, although neither
petitioner No. 1 nor petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were
named in the FIR, on 21.08.2025, a team of five to
six police personnel from Vadgaon Police Station,
Maharashtra, visited the premises of petitioner No. 1
at Tumkur and informed the petitioners that they had
come to conduct an enquiry in connection with Crime
No. 446/2025. A notice dated 21.08.2025 was
thereafter issued to the partners, directing them to
appear before Vadgaon Police Station. However, their
statements came to be recorded at Tumkur and not
at Vadgaon.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have
approached this Court seeking the reliefs set out in
the petition.
Facts in WP No.31910/2025:

9. Petitioner No. 1 is a registered partnership firm, of
which petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners.
Petitioner No. 1 is stated to be engaged in business
as a trader/stockist/consignment and forwarding
(CNF) agent for pan masala and chewing tobacco.

10. On 19.08.2025, the officers of Vadgaon Police Station
intercepted a Tata truck bearing registration No. MH-
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


03/CH-3017. On 20.08.2025, a police constable
lodged a complaint, pursuant to which Crime No.
446/2025 came to be registered for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 59, 30(2)(a),
27(3)(d), 27(3)(e), 26(2)(iv) and 26(2)(i) of the
‘ FSS Act’ , and Sections 275, 274, 223 and 123 of
the ‘ BNS’ .

11. The petitioners contend that, notwithstanding the
fact that neither petitioner No. 1 nor petitioners Nos.
2 and 3 were named in the FIR, on 21.08.2025, five
to six police personnel from Vadgaon Police Station,
Maharashtra, visited the premises of petitioner No. 1
at Tumkur and stated that they had come to conduct
an enquiry in connection with Crime No. 446/2025. A
notice dated 21.08.2025 was issued to the partners
requiring them to appear before Vadgaon Police
Station. However, their statements came to be
recorded at Tumkur and not at Vadgaon.

12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have
approached this Court seeking the reliefs prayed for
in the petition.

13. Sri Gautam S. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in both the matters, submitted as
follows:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.1. The FIRs in both cases have been registered by
Vadgaon Police Station, Kolhapur, Maharashtra,
as is evident from the FIR produced at
Annexure-B to the respective petitions. Neither
FIR names the petitioners. Although notices
were issued to the petitioners requiring them to
appear before Vadgaon Police Station on
23.08.2025 at 11.00 a.m., their statements
were recorded by the said police at Tumkur,
Karnataka.

13.2. Learned counsel contended that the police
personnel from Maharashtra could not have
visited the petitioners’ premises in Karnataka
without informing the local police and obtaining
their consent or concurrence. No police
personnel from the local police station in
Karnataka were present at the time of such
visit. It was further contended that Vadgaon
Police Station lacks territorial jurisdiction to
investigate the petitioners, who are carrying on
business at Tumkur, or to issue notices to them
within the State of Karnataka.

13.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the
notice purportedly issued under Section 179 of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(for short ‘BNSS’), is without authority of law,
as respondent No. 2 had neither obtained prior
permission nor secured the concurrence of the
competent authorities in Karnataka. Referring
to Section 179 of the BNSS, learned counsel
contended that the power of a police officer to
require the attendance of persons for
investigation is confined to persons within the
limits of the officer’s own police station or an
adjoining police station. Accordingly, it was
argued that respondent No. 2, being a police
officer of the State of Maharashtra, had no
authority to issue such notices to the
petitioners in Karnataka.

13.4. Section 179 of the BNSS which corresponds to
earlier Section 160 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
179. Police officer's power to require attendance
of witnesses.
(1)Any police officer making an investigation under
this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the
attendance before himself of any person being within
the limits of his own or any adjoining station who,
from the information given or otherwise, appears to be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case; and such person shall attend as so required:
Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen
years or above the age of sixty years or a woman or a
mentally or physically disabled person or a person with
acute illness shall be required to attend at any place
other than the place in which such person resides:
Provided further that if such person is willing to attend
at the police station, such person may be permitted so
to do
(2)The State Government may, by rules made in this
behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of
the reasonable expenses of every person, attending
under sub-section (1) at any place other than his
residence.


13.5. Placing reliance on Section 179 of the BNSS,
learned counsel submitted that the power of a
police officer to require the attendance of a
person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of a case is subject to the
territorial limits prescribed under the said
provision. Accordingly, respondent No. 2, being
a police authority in the State of Maharashtra,
could not have exercised such power in respect
of the petitioners, who are carrying on business
at Tumkur, Karnataka, in the manner
complained of.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.6. Learned counsel further submitted that, despite
the petitioners having cooperated with the
investigation, respondent No. 2 continued to
harass them through repeated telephone calls,
visits to their premises and issuance of notices,
including notices purportedly under Section 179
of the BNSS. It was contended that respondent
No. 2 could not have undertaken such acts
within the State of Karnataka in the manner
adopted. The police authorities had also sought
to inspect the petitioners’ books of account and
called upon them to furnish copies of their
business ledgers. According to learned counsel,
the actions of respondent No. 2 were beyond its
lawful authority and contrary to the procedure
prescribed under the BNSS. He therefore
contended that the entire course of action
adopted by respondent No. 2 was without
jurisdiction.

13.7. Learned counsel further submitted that the
CrPC and the BNSS, are referable to Entries 1
and 2 of List III (Concurrent List) of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.
In support of his submission, learned counsel
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


invited the attention of the Court to the said
entries, which read as follows:
“ 1. Criminal law , including all matters included in
the Indian Penal Code at the commencement of this
Constitution but excluding offences against laws
with respect to any of the matters specified in List I
or List II and excluding the use of naval, military
forces or any other armed forces of the Union in aid
of the civil power.

2. Criminal procedure , including all matters
included in the Code of Criminal Procedure at the
commencement of this Constitution.”


13.8. The police authorities derive their investigation
powers in terms of Entry 2 of List No.2, which is
a State List of the Seventh Schedule, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
2. Police (including railway and village police)
subject to the provisions of entry 2A of List I


13.9. Placing reliance on Entry 2, learned counsel
contended that the power of investigation is
exercisable by the police in accordance with the
territorial jurisdiction vested in them and that,
in the present case, the investigation could be
undertaken only by the police authorities
having territorial jurisdiction over the place
where the petitioners carry on their business.
Accordingly, it was submitted that the police
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


authorities of the State of Maharashtra could
not exercise investigative powers within the
State of Karnataka in the manner complained
of.

13.10. Learned counsel further submitted that Entry
80 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India specifically
provides for the extension of the powers and
jurisdiction of members of a police force
belonging to one State to areas outside that
State, subject to the constitutional limitation
that the police of one State cannot exercise
such powers and jurisdiction in another State
without the consent of the Government of the
State in which such area is situated. The said
entry reads as follows:
80. Extension of the powers and jurisdiction of
members of a police force belonging to any State
to any area outside that State, but not so as to
enable the police of one State to exercise powers
and jurisdiction in any area outside that State
without the consent of the Government of the
State in which such area is situated; extension of
the powers and jurisdiction of members of a police
force belonging to any State to railway areas
outside that State.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.11. Learned counsel submitted that the
constitutional scheme distinguishes between
legislative competence over criminal procedure,
traceable to Entries 1 and 2 of List III
(Concurrent List), and police administration,
referable to Entry 2 of List II (State List). He
contended that Entry 80 of List I (Union List)
specifically contemplates the extension of the
powers and jurisdiction of a State police force
beyond its territorial limits, subject to the
restriction that the police of one State cannot
exercise such powers in another State without
the consent of the Government of that State.
On this constitutional premise, learned counsel
argued that respondent No. 2 could not
exercise investigative powers within the State
of Karnataka in the manner complained of, in
the absence of compliance with the applicable
constitutional and statutory requirements.

13.12. He refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani
vs. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 9 SCC
551], paragraph 95 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


95. The police power of the State in respect of
any offence committed in a State comes within
the legislative competence of the State. The
State may exercise some extraterritorial jurisdiction
only if a part of the offence is committed in the
State and the other part in another State or some
other States. In such an event the State before
an investigation to that part of the offence
which has been committed in any (sic other)
State may have to proceed with the consent of
the State concerned or must work with the
police of the other State. Its jurisdiction over
the investigation into a matter is limited.
Keeping in view the various entries contained in List
I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, there
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in the matter
of investigation of the matter (sic offence)
committed in a State, the jurisdiction of the Central
Government is excluded.


13.13. By relying on Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani , his
submission is that the police power of a State,
in respect of any offence committed in a State,
comes within the legislative competence of the
State. The State may exercise extra-territorial
jurisdiction only if a part of the offence is
committed in the State and the other part in
another State or some other States. In such an
event, the State, before investigating that part
of the offence which has been committed in any
other State, may have to proceed with the
consent of the State concerned or must work
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


with the police of the other State. The police of
one State cannot investigate any offence in
another State without the consent of that other
State, and even in such case, they would have
to work with the police of that State and not
independently.

13.14. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of W.B., vs.
Committee for Protection of Democratic
Rights [(2010) 3 SCC 571], paragraph 30,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
30. From a bare reading of the aforenoted
constitutional provisions, it is manifest that by
virtue of these entries, the legislative power of
the Union to provide for the regular police
force of one State to exercise power and
jurisdiction in any area outside the State can
only be exercised with the consent of the
Government of that particular State in which
such area is situated, except the police force
belonging to any State to exercise power and
jurisdiction to railway areas outside that
State.


13.15. By relying on Committee for Protection of
Democratic Rights , his submission is that it is
only the Union, i.e. the Parliament, that can
provide for a regular police force of one State to
exercise power and jurisdiction in any area
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


outside the State and on that ground, he
submits that there is no law enacted by the
Parliament under List I that provides for
exercise of the powers of the Maharashtra
Police or any other State police within the State
of Karnataka. He submits that he does not
place the bar at such a level that police of one
State cannot investigate in another State. But
his submission is that police of one State can
investigate an offence in another State with
such powers being subjected to such guardrails
and checks and safeguards as indicated in the
applicable law one of them being with
intimation, concurrence or consent of the
jurisdictional police station.

13.16. He refers to Section 179 of the BNSS, earlier
Section 160 of the CrPC Section 179 is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
179. Police officer's power to require attendance of
witnesses.
(1)Any police officer making an investigation under this
Chapter may, by order in writing, require the
attendance before himself of any person being within
the limits of his own or any adjoining station who, from
the information given or otherwise, appears to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case; and such person shall attend as so required:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


Provided that no male person under the age of fifteen
years or above the age of sixty years or a woman or a
mentally or physically disabled person or a person with
acute illness shall be required to attend at any place
other than the place in which such person resides:
Provided further that if such person is willing to attend at
the police station, such person may be permitted so to do

(2)The State Government may, by rules made in this
behalf, provide for the payment by the police officer of
the reasonable expenses of every person, attending
under sub-section (1) at any place other than his
residence.


13.17. Section 160 of CrPC is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
160. Police officer's power to require
attendance of witnesses.
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under
this Chapter may, by order in writing require the
attendance before himself of any person being
within the limits of his own or any adjoining station
who, from the information given or otherwise,
appears to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case; and such person shall
attend as so required :

Provided that no male person [under the age of
fifteen years or above the age of sixty-five years or
a woman or a mentally or physically disabled
person] [Substituted for the words "under the age
of fifteen years or woman" by Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013] shall be required to attend
at any place other than the place in which such
male person or woman resides.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


(2) The State Government may, by rules made in
this behalf, provide for the payment by the police
officer of the reasonable expenses of every person,
attending under sub-section (1) at any place other
than his residence.

13.18. By referring to Section 179 of BNSS, he submits
that the police officer is empowered to require
the attendance of any person who is within the
limits of his own or any adjoining police station.
The Vadgaon police station being situated in
Kolhapur, between Kolhapur to Tumkur there
are several districts of the State of Karnataka.
The location of the premises of the petitioners
is not in an adjoining police station to that of
Vadgaon police station. Thus he submits that
the Vadgaon police station could not have
exercised any jurisdiction over the premises of
the petitioner which is based in Tumkur.

13.19. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Gauhati at Shillong in the case of
Pusma Investment (P) Ltd. vs. State of
Meghalaya [(2009) SCC OnLine Gau 107],
paragraph 5 , which is reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
5. Section 160, Cr. P.C. authorizes a police officer
making an investigation, by order in writing, (i) to
require the attendance before himself, (ii) of any person,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to
be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case, and (iii) who is residing within the limits of his own
police station or any adjoining police station. The
expression “who being within the limits of his own” read
with the words following it, namely, “or any adjoining
station” can only mean the person, who is to be
summoned, must reside within the limits of the police
station of the police officer making the investigation. So
read, it becomes clear that such police officer
making the investigation can enforce the
attendance of a person acquainted with the facts
and circumstances only if the latter resides within
the limits of his own police station or adjoining
station. If the person being summoned does not reside
within the limits of the police station of the police officer
making the investigation or, at any rate, within the limits
of the adjoining police station, it appears that such police
officer cannot enforce his attendance even though he
may be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of
the case being investigated by him. The proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 160 says that no male person
under the age of fifteen years or woman shall be required
to attend at any place other than the place in which such
male person or woman resides. Then, sub-section (2) of
section 160 further provides that the State Government
may, by rules made in this behalf, provide for the
payment by the officer of the reasonable expenses of
every person, attending under sub-section (1) at any
place other than his residence. Conjoint reading of both
the sub-sections and the proviso to sub-section (1) of
section 160 plainly indicate, firstly, that the person to be
summoned by the officer making the investigation must
reside within the local limits of his own police station or
within the adjoining area, secondly, that in the case of a
male person under the age of fifteen years or woman,
their attendance cannot be enforced at any place other
than their residence even if they reside within the limits
of the police station of the police officer making the
investigation or within the limits of the adjoining police
station and, thirdly, that reasonable expenses of every
person other than a male person under the age of fifteen
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


years or woman attending such requisition at any place
within the limits of the police station of the officer
making the investigation or the adjoining police station
shall have to be paid by the concerned police officer as
per rules framed by the State Government in this behalf.
If the contention of the learned Additional Advocate
General that under section 160, the police officer making
the investigation is not disabled from requiring the
attendance of a witness residing beyond the local limits
of his police station or adjoining station, is accepted, that
will amount to ignoring the words “being within the limits
of his own or any adjoining station”. In my opinion, such
interpretation is against all canons of interpretation. It is
not a sound principle of construction to brush aside
words in a statute as being inapposite surplusage, if they
can have appropriate application in circumstances
conceivably within the contemplation of the statute (see
Ashwini Kumar Ghosh v. Aretbinda Bose, (1952) 2 SCC
237 : AIR 1952 SC 369). “In the interpretation of
statutes”, observed DAS GUPTA, J. in, J.K. Cotton
spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR
1961 SC 1170 (at page 1174), “the courts presume that
the Legislature inserted every part thereof for a purpose
and the legislative intention is that every part of the
statute should have effect”. The Legislature is deemed
not to waste its words or to say anything in vain
and a construction which attributes redundancy to
the Legislature will not be accepted except for
compelling reasons. When the language of section
160 is plain and unambiguous, this court cannot
plunge headlong into a discussion of the reason
which motivated the Legislature into enacting this
provision and took into consideration the hardship
and inconvenience being caused to the
investigating agency if they are not allowed to
enforce the attendance of witnesses residing
beyond their police station or adjoining police
station. The rule of purposive construction cannot also
be invoked in this provision. The correct principle,
according to the learned author, G.P. Singh, J., is that
after the words have been construed in the context and it
is found that the language is capable of bearing only one
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 24 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


construction, the rule in Heydon's case ceases to be
controlling and gives way to the plain meaning rule. But
the rule cannot be used to “the length of applying
unnatural meanings to familiar words or of so stretching
the language that its former shape is transformed into
something which is not only significantly different but has
a name of its own especially when “the language has no
evident ambiguity or uncertainty about it. (see Principles
of Statutory Interpretation, 9th edn. pp. 119-120). In the
view that I have taken, the impugned notices are ultra
vires the provisions of section 160 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cannot be sustained in
law. I have carefully gone through the case Antrudha S.
Bhagat (supra) cited by the learned Additional Advocate
General, but, with respect, I find myself unable to agree
with view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay
High Court for the reasons already stated in the
foregoing.


13.20. By relying on Pusma Investment , he submits
that the power to require attendance under
Section 160 of the CrPC, was confined to
persons residing within the limits of the
investigating police officer’s own police station
or an adjoining police station. The Court therein
held that the expression “being within the limits
of his own or any adjoining station” imposed a
territorial limitation on the exercise of such
power and that notices issued in contravention
thereof were ultra vires the provision. Learned
counsel contended that the said interpretation
applies equally to Section 179 of the BNSS and,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 25 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


accordingly, the notices issued by respondent
No. 2 to the petitioners at Tumkur, Karnataka,
were beyond its authority and unsustainable in
law.

13.21. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court in the case of Dharampal
Satyapal Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra,
[2022 SCC OnLine Gau 943], paragraphs 5, 15
and 18 to 22 , which are reproduced hereunder
for easy reference:
5. In course of investigation, the stock of pan-masala,
tobacco, recovered from the FIR named accused Md.
Imran Mohammed Hanif was seized and he was arrested,
subsequent to the FIR. Various notice was served
upon the petitioner Company at New Delhi, for
production of certain documents under Section 91
of the CrPC and the petitioner immediately
responded to the same by detail reply along with
the documents. Suddenly on 09.03.2022, respondent
No. 2, who is the investigating officer of the said case,
visited the factory of the petitioner at Bamunimaidam
and entered into the premises along with police officials
of Chandmari P.S., without any document/search warrant
from the Court of Law and the respondent No. 2 forcibly
seized the entire machinery and articles from the factory
of the petitioner and prepared the seizure list
(panchnama) and also sealed the gate of the petitioner
company's factory. The seized/finished pan-masala was
worth more than one crore and was lying in the
production hall, to be sent for packaging. Such pan-
masala contains highly hygroscopic substance like katha,
which attract moisture and exposure to such moisture
has caused huge loss to the articles.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 26 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



15. Due consideration is given to the argument
advanced by both the parties. Certain basic features
required to be decided in the present petition as to-

i. Whether petitioner has requisite documents to run
the business of manufacturing pan-masala under
the authority of law and has right to resist the
execution of search and seizure?
ii. Whether respondent no. 2 has power to seize
factory, plant and machinery in Guwahati in
connection with the FIR that has been registered in
Maharashtra, which is not against the present
petitioner?
iii. Whether due process of law has been followed by
the respondent while conducting search and seizure
in the premises of the petitioner?
iv. Whether impugned seizure is arbitrary, illegal
and violative of the fundamental right of the
petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India?

18. The Investigating Officer while carrying the
investigation came to the premises of the informant
which is a manufacturing unit of pan-masala without
obtaining any order of the court and no document
whatsoever has been produced at the time of such
search and seizure to the persons in occupation of the
aforesaid manufacturing unit, neither the respondent has
been able to produce the same before this Court while
filing the affidavit in this case. That being so, it is
crystal clear that the respondent no.2 has acted of
his own without any authorization. He has also
failed to brought on record as to how he assumed
jurisdiction to seize the articles from the premises
of the petitioner, there being no any document to
show that the FIR named accused has direct
dealings with the present petitioner. Also nothing
has been brought on record about compliance of Section
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 27 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


102 that he has duly informed the concerned court about
such necessity of seizure.
19 . On the other hand, dealing of such article like pan-
masala etc. is covered under the special law of FSS Act
and which has an overriding effect on the provision of the
CrPC . In Christy Fried Gram Industry v. State of
Karnataka, 2016 Crl. LJ 482, it has been held that for
initiation of proceedings regarding manufacture and
supply of food to general public are regulated under FSS
Act in complete mechanism is provided under the said
Act to deal with the cases concerned with the food
related laws. Section 29 of the said Act specifies the
authorities responsible for enforcement of the Act and
Section 30 specifies the Commissioner of Food and
Safety as a competent authority to implement the
provision of the Act effectively.
20 . The provision of Section 41 and 42 of the FSS Act,
make special provision as regard how investigation needs
to be carried out whenever there is a reasonable doubt
about commission of the offence relating to food item by
the authority. Section 41 prescribes that Food and Safety
Officer have the power to search and seizure of food
articles and Section 42 prescribes that the Food and
Safety Officer is responsible for inspection of food
business, drawing samples and sending the same to the
food analyst for analysis and thereafter can launch the
prosecution in appropriate case. The above provision
clearly indicates that only the Food Inspector can carry
out such investigation, inquiry and can launch
prosecution to determine the article whether same is
adulterated. Further, in view of the provision of Section
4(2) of CrPC, all offences under any other law shall be
dealt with in accordance with the enactment regulating
the manner of investigation and trial etc. and as such the
FSS being a complete statute, has an overriding effect as
Special Act to deal with such food items.
21. In view of the above legal proposition, it can be held
that the investigation so far carried by the I/O
particularly, so far as regard the present petitioner is
beyond the jurisdiction under law. He was also not
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 28 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


bothered to apprise the court of the competent
jurisdiction in Guwahati seeking permission for such
search and seizure nor any intimation was forwarded,
which has vitiated entire search and seizure and liable to
be interfered into.
22. The petitioner herein without there being any
criminal culpability has been thrown to utter hardship
and inconvenience by seizure of building as well as the
article valued more than crores of rupees thereby the
petitioner has been compelled to run a legal battle
consuming time, energy and heavy cost while continuing
such litigation before the High Court. Although, initially
the petitioner was allowed interim relief at the time of
filing of this petition, but being not satisfied with the
order, the petitioner carried the matter to the appellate
court wherein the appellate court allowed the petitioner
to take possession of the manufactured goods subject to
giving bank guarantee of rupees one crore. The
fundamental rights of the petitioner to carry out the
lawful business has been hampered for such illegal
conduct on the part of the investigating officer.

13.22. By relying on Dharampal Satyapal , he
submits that the exercise of investigative
powers must be traceable to a lawful source of
authority and conform to the territorial and
procedural limitations prescribed by law. He
contended that the Gauhati High Court had
deprecated the exercise of investigative
powers, including search and seizure, in the
absence of material establishing the
investigating officer’s authority to undertake
such action and compliance with the applicable
statutory procedure.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 29 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.23. Learned counsel further submitted that the said
decision assumes significance in the present
cases, inasmuch as the investigating authorities
of the State of Maharashtra had sought to
exercise their investigative powers at the
petitioners’ premises in Tumkur, Karnataka,
without establishing the legal basis for such
exercise of authority beyond the territorial
limits of their State. He contended that the
question was not merely whether respondent
No. 2 was competent to investigate the
offences alleged in the FIR, but whether such
competence authorised the investigating officer
to compel the attendance of the petitioners and
require production of their business records
within Karnataka, in the manner adopted.
According to learned counsel, the existence of
an FIR in Maharashtra could not, by itself,
dispense with compliance with the statutory
conditions governing the exercise of
investigative powers in another State.

13.24. Adverting to the observations in Dharampal
Satyapal Ltd ., concerning the special statutory
mechanism under the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006, learned counsel submitted
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 30 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


that the powers of investigation, inspection and
seizure in relation to food articles must be
exercised within the framework prescribed by
the governing enactment and cannot be
assumed independently of the authority
conferred by law. He contended that, applying
the same principle, respondent No. 2 was
required to demonstrate the statutory authority
under which it had issued notices and
undertaken investigative steps against the
petitioners in Karnataka. In the absence of such
authority and compliance with the applicable
legal requirements, learned counsel submitted
that the impugned notices and consequential
actions were without jurisdiction and liable to
be set aside.

13.25. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Kulvinder Singh
Kohli vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2022 SCC
OnLine Del 1766], paragraphs 21 to 34, which
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
21. The authority concerned, that is Respondent 3,
issued the impugned summons/notices to the
petitioner under Section 160CrPC. A perusal of the
said provision is deemed necessary at this stage
and hence, the same is reproduced hereunder:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 31 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



“160. Police officer's power to require attendance of
witnesses.—
(1) Any police officer making an investigation under
this chapter may, by order in writing, require the
attendance before himself of any person being
within the limits of his own or any adjoining station
who, from the information given or otherwise,
appears to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case and such person shall
attend as so required: Provided that no male person
[under the age of fifteen years or above the age of
sixty-five years or a woman or a mentally or
physically disabled person] shall be required to
attend at any place other than the place in which
such male person or woman resides.

(2) The State Government may, by rules made in
this behalf, provide for the payment by the police
officer of the reasonable expenses of every person,
attending under sub-section (1) at any place other
than his residence.”

22. It is evident from a bare reading of the provision that
a police officer may require attendance of a person who
is apparently acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of a case that such police officer is
investigating. A summons/notice to such a person is to
be issued following the due process and procedure of
law. The extent of this power is, however, limited
by the bounds of jurisdiction. The police officer
concerned may issue notice requiring attendance of any
person who is within the limits of his own police station
or that of an adjoining station. The language itself
defines the extents of the power of requiring attendance
and the same is to be abided by while proceeding under
the provision.
23. The perusal of the provision, poses two questions
before this Court that need to be adjudicated for
resolving the issue of legality of the summons/notices
issued. The first question is whether the authority
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 32 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


concerned/Respondent 3 issued the impugned notices at
the right stage. Other issue at hand is whether the
authority concerned/Respondent 3 was well within its
powers while issuing the summons to a person outside its
jurisdiction.
24. To answer the first question, the consideration
before this Court is that at what stage a notice
under Section 160CrPC can be issued. The words
used under the provision are “police officer making
investigation”. The CrPC itself defines investigation
in the following terms:

“2(h) ‘investigation’ includes all the proceedings
under this Code for the collection of evidence
conducted by a police officer or by any person
(other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a
Magistrate in this behalf;”

25. Section 2(h) CrPC includes all proceedings
under the CrPC for collection of evidence under the
ambit of investigation. In the present case, the
authority concerned received the complaint made
by the complainants wherein several allegations
were made by them against the petitioner and the
other prospective co-accused and upon receiving
the complaint, it issued summons under Section
160CrPC giving opportunity to the petitioner to
appear personally for further enquiry into the
complaint and the allegations levelled in it.
Respondent 3 summoned the petitioner at the stage
of preliminary inquiry, giving him opportunity to
adduce oral as well as documentary evidence in
pursuance to the complaint received by it. However,
whether the preliminary enquiry amounted to
investigation or not, is also a consideration before
this Court. The Madras High Court, in this regard
has made the following observations in V.N.
Pachaimuthu case [V.N. Pachaimuthu v. Supt. of
Police, 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 1020] :

“9. The petitioner has placed on record the notice,
issued under Section 160CrPC, calling petitioner for
enquiry. This notice on the face of it is without
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 33 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


jurisdiction and unwarranted in law, as notice under
Section 160CrPC can be issued to witness in
pending FIR, but cannot be issued to a person, who
is an accused in a complaint or before registration
of the case.

10. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed to a
limited extent and the notice issued by second
respondent under Section 160CrPC, calling
petitioner for enquiry, is ordered to be quashed.

11. As already observed above, respondents can
only proceed under the provisions of CrPC, in case
complaint discloses any cognizable offences. A
citizen cannot be called for enquiry under Section
160CrPC, in absence of any FIR. The power under
Section 160CrPC, can be exercised to call a witness,
after FIR is registered.”

26. The Supreme Court in Samaj Parivartan
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka [Samaj Parivartan
Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 7 SCC 407
: (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 365] , expressed its view on
the issue and observed as under:

“25. The machinery of criminal investigation is set
into motion by the registration of a first information
report (FIR) by the specified police officer of a
jurisdictional police station or otherwise. CBI, in
terms of its manual has adopted a procedure of
conducting limited pre-investigation inquiry as well.
In both the cases, the registration of FIR is
essential. A police investigation may start with the
registration of FIR while in other cases (CBI, etc.),
an inquiry may lead to the registration of an FIR
and thereafter regular investigation may begin in
accordance with the provisions of CrPC.

26. Section 154CrPC places an obligation upon the
authorities to register the FIR of the information
received, relating to commission of a cognizable
offence, whether such information is received orally
or in writing by the officer in charge of a police
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 34 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


station. A police officer is authorised to investigate
such cases without the order of a Magistrate,
though, in terms of Section 156(3)CrPC the
Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may
direct the registration of a case and order the police
authorities to conduct investigation, in accordance
with the provisions of CrPC. Such an order of the
Magistrate under Section 156(3)CrPC is in the
nature of a preemptory reminder or intimation to
the police, to exercise their plenary power of
investigation under that section. This would result in
a police report under Section 173, whereafter the
Magistrate may or may not take cognizance of the
offence and proceed under Chapter XVI CrPC. The
Magistrate has judicial discretion, upon receipt of a
complaint to take cognizance directly under Section
200CrPC, or to adopt the above procedure. (Ref.
Gopal Das Sindhi v. State of Assam [Gopal Das
Sindhi v. State of Assam, AIR 1961 SC 986 : (1961)
2 Cri LJ 39] ; Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan [Mohd.
Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627 : (2006) 1
SCC (Cri) 460 : AIR 2006 SC 705] and Mona
Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad
[Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of
Allahabad, (2011) 3 SCC 496 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri)
1181] .)

27. Once the investigation is conducted in
accordance with the provisions of CrPC, a police
officer is bound to file a report before the court of
competent jurisdiction, as contemplated under
Section 173CrPC, upon which the Magistrate can
proceed to try the offence, if the same were triable
by such court or commit the case to the Court of
Session. It is significant to note that the provisions
of Section 173(8)CrPC open with non obstante
language that nothing in the provisions of Sections
173(1) to 173(7) shall be deemed to preclude
further investigation in respect of an offence after a
report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to
the Magistrate. Thus, under Section 173(8), where
charge-sheet has been filed, that court also enjoys
the jurisdiction to direct further investigation into
the offence. (Ref. Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 35 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


[Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI, (2001) 7 SCC 536 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 1280] .) This power cannot have
any inhibition including such requirement as being
obliged to hear the accused before any such
direction is made.
∗∗∗

50. There is no provision in CrPC where an
investigating agency must provide a hearing to the
affected party before registering an FIR or even
before carrying on investigation prior to registration
of case against the suspect. CBI, as already noticed,
may even conduct pre-registration inquiry for which
notice is not contemplated under the provisions of
the Code, the police manual or even as per the
precedents laid down by this Court. It is only in
those cases where the court directs initiation of
investigation by a specialised agency or transfer
investigation to such agency from another agency
that the court may, in its discretion, grant hearing
to the suspect or affected parties. However, that
also is not an absolute rule of law and is primarily a
matter in the judicial discretion of the court. This
question is of no relevance to the present case as
we have already heard the interveners.”

27. The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of
U.P. [Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1
: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] , made the following
observations holding that the registration of FIR is a
starting point for investigation:

“37.6. A perusal of the abovesaid provisions
manifests the legislative intent in both old Codes
and the new Code for compulsory registration of FIR
in a case of cognizable offence without conducting
any preliminary inquiry.

38. The precursor to the present Code of 1973 is
the Code of 1898 wherein substantial changes were
made in the powers and procedure of the police to
investigate. The starting point of the powers of
police was changed from the power of the officer in
charge of a police station to investigate into a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 36 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


cognizable offence without the order of a
Magistrate, to the reduction of the first information
regarding commission of a cognizable offence,
whether received orally or in writing, into writing
and into the book separately prescribed by the
Provincial Government for recording such first
information. As such, a significant change that took
place by way of the 1898 Code was with respect to
the placement of Section 154 i.e. the provision
imposing requirement of recording the first
information regarding commission of a cognizable
offence in the special book prior to Section 156 i.e.
the provision empowering the police officer to
investigate a cognizable offence. As such, the
objective of such placement of provisions was clear
which was to ensure that the recording of the first
information should be the starting point of any
investigation by the police. In the interest of
expediency of investigation since there was no
safeguard of obtaining permission from the
Magistrate to commence an investigation, the said
procedure of recording first information in their
books along with the signature/seal of the
informant, would act as an ‘extremely valuable
safeguard’ against the excessive, mala fide and
illegal exercise of the investigative powers by the
police.

39. The provisions contained in Chapter XII of the
Code deal with information to the police and their
powers to investigate. The said chapter sets out the
procedure to be followed during investigation. The
objective to be achieved by the procedure
prescribed in the said chapter is to set the criminal
law in motion and to provide for all procedural
safeguards so as to ensure that the investigation is
fair and is not mala fide and there is no scope of
tampering with the evidence collected during the
investigation.”

28. The Supreme Court further noted that a
preliminary inquiry into an offence may not be
carried out by the police prior to registration of FIR,
without the interference of the Magistrate
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 37 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


concerned as provided for under Section 157CrPC.
The observations on this legal point are reproduced
as under:

“86. Therefore, conducting an investigation into an
offence after registration of FIR under Section 154
of the Code is the ‘procedure established by law’
and, thus, is in conformity with Article 21 of the
Constitution. Accordingly, the right of the accused
under Article 21 of the Constitution is protected if
the FIR is registered first and then the investigation
is conducted in accordance with the provisions of
law.

87. The term ‘inquiry’ as per Section 2(g) of the
Code reads as under:

‘2. (g) “inquiry” means every inquiry, other than a
trial, conducted under this Code by a Magistrate or
Court.’
Hence, it is clear that inquiry under the Code is
relatable to a judicial act and not to the steps taken
by the police which are either investigation after the
stage of Section 154 of the Code or termed as
‘preliminary inquiry’ and which are prior to the
registration of FIR, even though, no entry in the
general diary/station diary/daily diary has been
made.

88. Though there is reference to the terms
‘preliminary inquiry’ and ‘inquiry’ under Section 159
and Sections 202 and 340 of the Code, that is a
judicial exercise undertaken by the court and not by
the police and is not relevant for the purpose of the
present reference.”

29. From the discussion above, it can be deduced
that summons/notices under Section 160CrPC can
be issued by a police officer who is making
investigation under and in accordance with the
provisions of the CrPC and to set into motion such
an investigation there is a pre-requisite of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 38 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


registration of FIR. Without registration of FIR,
an investigation cannot be said to have been
initiated. Further, even for an enquiry to be held
legal and valid, the police officer has to act in
accordance with provisions of the CrPC and he may
not act beyond his powers by conducting a
preliminary enquiry without making a report to a
Magistrate. Therefore, in the instant case, it cannot
be said that either an investigation or an enquiry
was validly or legally being carried out by the
authority concerned/Respondent 3 even for the
limited purposes of issuing a notice under Section
160CrPC.

30. The learned counsel for the respondents relied
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Charansingh v. State of Maharashtra [Charansingh
v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 469 : (2021)
2 SCC (Cri) 617 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 52] , wherein
it was observed that a preliminary inquiry before
the registration of FIR is permissible, however, the
background of the case is entirely different from the
instant matter. In the case before the Supreme
Court such observations were made with reference
to a public servant for contravention of provisions of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which poses
a graver threat to the society and the general
public. The PC Act is a specific legislation which
varies from the provisions laid down under general
Acts like the IPC and the CrPC. Therefore, an
observation in this regard may not be applicable in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant
case.

31. The second consideration which is before this
Court is whether the authority
concerned/Respondent 3 acted within his powers in
terms of territorial limitations while issuing the
notices under Section 160CrPC.

32. The provision says that a police officer
making investigation may require attendance
of “any person being within the limits of his
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 39 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


own or any adjoining station”, thereby, clearly
and unequivocally setting limits to the
jurisdiction within which the police officer is
permitted to act. For this point reference is also
made to Directorate of Enforcement v. State of W.B.
[Directorate of Enforcement v. State of W.B., 2021
SCC OnLine Del 5603] , wherein while referring to
Section 160CrPC, a Coordinate Bench of this Court
noted as under:

“27. By a mere reading of the said provisions, it
becomes apparent that power of the police officer to
require attendance of a witness is circumscribed by
the words ‘within the limits of his own or any
adjoining station’. It is to be noted that if the said
power was in the nature of PAN-India power, as has
been sought to be argued by the respondents, there
was no reason for the legislature to use the
terminology quoted above. To the contrary, if the
same was the intention of the legislature, the
legislature would have clearly stated so and
bestowed unlimited jurisdiction on the police officer
by using terminology in the nature of ‘anywhere in
the country’ or even ‘anywhere within the State’.
The clear departure of the legislature and the use of
the terms ‘within the limits of his own or any
adjoining station’ points towards a legislative
intention to limit the jurisdiction in this regard. The
reliance placed by the respondents in this regard on
the judgment in Anant Brahmachari v. Union of
India [Anant Brahmachari v. Union of India, 2012
SCC OnLine Del 1680] , may not further the case of
the respondents as clearly the said judgment was
dealing with a separate statutory set-up in the
nature of the National Investigation Agency Act,
2008 which would have a strong bearing on the
issue as the said agency has jurisdiction across the
country. Further, this Court in Ravinder Singh v.
State [Ravinder Singh v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine
Del 4783] vide order dated 27-7-2010, has held as
under:

‘The section does not need help of dictionaries
or other judgments for understanding its
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 40 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


meaning when there is no ambiguity and it is
so clearly written either within his own police
station or in the adjoining police station. I,
therefore, consider that summons issued to the
petitioner under Section 160CrPC in Delhi, which is
not adjoining police station of Rewari is without
jurisdiction and the notice is, therefore, quashed.’

28. I am, therefore, prima facie inclined to agree
with the dictum in Ravinder Singh case [Ravinder
Singh v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4783] .
Therefore, on the issue of the competence of the
respondents to issue the impugned notices, a
serious challenge has been presented by the
petitioners, which prima facie, seems to have
considerable merit. It may also be noted that the
said issue goes to the root of the matter and if
the respondents lacks jurisdiction itself to
issue the impugned notices, the entire case of
the respondents falls.”

33. In the instant matter between the parties
before this Court, the impugned summons/notices
were issued by the authority concerned/Respondent
3 from District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab, whereas,
the petitioner alleges that he is a resident of J
1/162 E, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi —
110 027. Even a perusal of the impugned
summons/notice reveals that the notice under
Section 160CrPC was issued to the petitioner at his
correspondence address at House No. 651, Sector
15, Gurugram, Haryana. Both these addresses are
evidently outside and beyond the territorial limits of
the police station concerned SAS Nagar. The bar of
jurisdiction under Section 160CrPC is
indisputably applicable to the instant matter
and in such a case, the notice issued can
rightly be said to be issued without
jurisdiction.

34. Keeping in view the above discussion, the
provisions under the CrPC as well as the
observations made by courts of the Country, it is
found that firstly, the notice under Section 160CrPC
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 41 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


was not issued at the right stage by Respondent 3,
since, he could not have been said to be conducting
investigation under the CrPC without the
registration of FIR for the purpose of issuance of the
notice under Section 160 and secondly, the
summons/notices were issued without jurisdiction
from the concerned authority in SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab to the petitioner residing beyond its own
station as well as any adjoining station.


13.26. By referring to Kulvinder Singh Kohli, he
submits that the power of a police officer to
issue a notice requiring attendance under
Section 160 of the CrPC, is circumscribed by
the territorial limits expressly stipulated in the
provision and cannot be exercised beyond such
limits. The Delhi High Court, while emphasising
that the exercise of investigative powers must
conform to the procedure established by law,
held that a notice under Section 160 could be
issued only by a police officer conducting a
lawful investigation and within the territorial
limits prescribed by the provision.

13.27. Applying the said principle to the present cases,
learned counsel contended that respondent No.
2, being an investigating authority of the State
of Maharashtra, could not invoke Section 179 of
the BNSS to compel the attendance of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 42 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


petitioners, who carry on business at Tumkur,
Karnataka, unless the territorial requirements
of the provision were satisfied. He submitted
that the registration of an FIR in Maharashtra
could not, by itself, enlarge the territorial limits
within which the power to require attendance
could be exercised. Accordingly, it was
contended that the notices issued to the
petitioners and the consequential investigative
steps undertaken at Tumkur were beyond the
authority conferred by law and liable to be set
aside.

13.28. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Directorate of
Enforcement and others vs. State of West
Bengal and others, [2021 SCC OnLine Del
5603] , paragraphs 18, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and
30, which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
18. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the notices issued under Section 160 (1) of Cr.P.C. can
only be issued to a person who is within the local
jurisdiction of that police station or is within the
jurisdiction or any “adjoining” police station. He further
submitted that in the present case, the petitioners are
posted in Delhi which is clearly outside the jurisdiction of
respondent police officers and police station. Specific
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 43 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment in
Ravinder Singh v. State, W.P. (Crl.) No. 971/2010 And
Crl. M.A. Nos. 8234-8235/2010, order dated 27.07.2010;
T Purshotam v. Circel Inspector of Police, 1997 Cri LJ
4011 (Andhra Pradesh); Krishan Bans Bhadur v. The
State of H.P., 1975 Cri LJ 620 (Himachal Pradesh);
Mathews Peter v. Asst. Police Inspector, 2002 Cri LJ 1585
(Andhra Pradesh) and Pusma Investment Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of Meghalaya, 2010 Cri LJ 56 (Gauhati).

22. He further submitted that the word “adjoining”
occurring in Section 160 Cr.PC implies vesting of
jurisdiction outside the State as well. In this regard he
relied on the judgment in Anant Brahmachari v. Union of
India, ILR (2012) 3 Del 682.
25. At this stage, it is clarified that only a prima
facie opinion is required to be formed. While the
petitioners have raised various wide ranging issues
concerning the manner of registration of FIR and
malafides, at present, the issues that arise for
consideration, can be mentioned as under:
a. Whether the Respondents have the power under
Section 160 Cr.P.C. to issue the impugned notices?
b. Whether the present petition is maintainable in
view of the Directorate of Enforcement being
Petitioner No. 1?
c. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to
quash the impugned notices in view of
objection raised as to the territorial
jurisdiction?
d. Whether the Petitioners have made out a case for
any interim relief?

26. In order to appreciate the first issue, it is
necessary to take note of the text of Section 160
Cr.P.C. Section 160 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“160. Police officer's power to require attendance of
witnesses.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 44 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


(1) Any police officer, making an investigation
under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require
the attendance before himself of any person being
within the limits of his own or any adjoining
station who, from the information given or
otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts
and circumstances of the case; and such person
shall attend as so required:
Provided that no male person under the age of
fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend
at anyplace other than the place in which such male
person or woman resides.
(2) The State Government may, by rules made in
this behalf provide for the payment by the police
officer of the reasonable expenses of every person,
attending under sub-section (1) at any place other
than his residence.”

27. By a mere reading of the said provisions, it becomes
apparent that power of the Police Officer to require
attendance of a witness is circumscribed by the words
“ within the limits of his own or any adjoining
station ”. It is to be noted that if the said power was in
the nature of pan-India power, as has been sought to be
argued by the respondents, there was no reason for the
Legislature to use the terminology quoted above. To the
contrary, if the same was the intention of the
Legislature, the Legislature would have clearly
stated so and bestowed unlimited jurisdiction on
the Police Officer by using terminology in the
nature of “anywhere in the country” or even
“anywhere within the State” The clear departure of
the Legislature and the use of the terms “within
the limits of his own or any adjoining station”
points towards a legislative intention to limit the
jurisdiction in this regard. The reliance placed by
the respondents in this regard on the judgment in
Anant Brahmachari v. Union of India (supra), may
not further the case of the respondents as clearly
the said judgment was dealing with a separate
statutory setup in the nature of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 which would have a
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 45 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


strong bearing on the issue as the said agency has
jurisdiction across the country. Further, this Court in
Ravinder Singh v. State W.P. (Crl.) No. 971/2010 vide
order dated 27.07.2010, has held as under:
“The Section does not need help of dictionaries or
other judgments for understanding its meaning
when there is no ambiguity and it is so clearly
written either within his own police station or in
the adjoining police station. I, therefore, consider
that summons issued to the petitioner under
Section 160 Cr.P.C. in Delhi, which is not adjoining
police station of Rewari is without jurisdiction and
the notice is, therefore, quashed. ”
28. I am, therefore, prima facie inclined to agree with
the dictum in Ravinder Singh (supra). Therefore, on the
issue of the competence of the Respondents to issue the
impugned notices, a serious challenge has been
presented by the petitioners, which prima facie, seems to
have considerable merit. It may also be noted that the
said issue goes to the root of the matter and if the
respondents lacks jurisdiction itself to issue the
impugned notices, the entire case of the respondents
falls.
30. With regard to the preliminary objection of territorial
jurisdiction to quash the impugned notices, it may be
noted that the theory of “part of cause of action” has
been far too well settled by this Court and the Hon'ble
Apex Court [Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited v. Union of
India, (2004) 6 SCC 254; Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union
of India, (2014) 9 SCC 329; Navin Chandra N. Majithia v.
State of Maharashtra, (2000) 7 SCC 640]. Prima facie, it
is clear from the factual conspectus that the impugned
notices were served to persons in Delhi, who are residing
in Delhi. Further, the petitioners have raised a
considerable case of malafides on the basis of facts
emanating from Delhi. Specifically in this regard the Ld.
counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that as soon
as the complainant in the FIR was summoned on
22.07.2021 in connection to the ECL illegal Coal mining
case, on the very same day, the first impugned notice
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 46 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


was issued by the respondents. It may be noted that the
said ECL Coal Mining case of the petitioner No. 1 is being
investigated from Delhi and the complaint in the said
case has been filed in the jurisdictional Court in Delhi. In
this regard, further the judgment of Ravinder Singh
(supra) may be noted wherein summons issued by
Rewari Police [State of Haryana] were quashed by this
Court. On a perusal of the entire facts and circumstances
pleaded in the petition, and further, specifically the claim
of the petitioners that the legal right claimed by them
has been infringed by the respondents within the
territorial jurisdiction of this Court, I am prima facie of
the opinion that the petitioners have made out a prima
facie case as to the maintainability of the present
petition.

13.29. By referring to Directorate of Enforcement
vs. the State of West Bengal , he submits
that the power of a police officer to require the
attendance of a person under Section 160 of
the CrPC, is expressly circumscribed by the
territorial limits of the officer’s own police
station or an adjoining police station. The
Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the language
of the provision manifests a legislative intent to
restrict the exercise of such power territorially
and does not confer an unrestricted, pan-India
authority to summon persons irrespective of
their place of residence.

13.30. Applying the aforesaid principle to the present
cases, learned counsel contended that
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 47 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


respondent No. 2, being an officer of Vadgaon
Police Station in Maharashtra, could not invoke
Section 179 of the BNSS to compel the
attendance of the petitioners at Tumkur,
Karnataka, when their place of business falls
outside the territorial limits contemplated by
the provision. He submitted that the
registration of an FIR in Maharashtra does not,
by itself, confer authority to exercise every
investigative power throughout the country,
irrespective of the express statutory limitations
governing its exercise. Accordingly, it was
contended that the notices issued to the
petitioners and the consequential steps taken
by respondent No. 2 at Tumkur were without
jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

13.31. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Jamshed Adil
Khan & Anr., vs. Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir and Anr., [2022 SCC
OnLine Del 4870], paragraphs 8, 9 and 10,
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:-
8. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 have pleaded that they are
residents of Delhi and have filed in sealed cover, their
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 48 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


affidavits disclosing their addresses along with copy of
their respective aadhar cards. Ld. counsel for the
petitioners submitted that petitioners' addresses be not
revealed on record, as the petitioners apprehend threat
to their life on account of having carried out journalistic
investigation in other sensitive matters in Jammu and
Kashmir. The petitioners have also submitted that even
the aforesaid summons were addressed to them at the
office of TV Today Network, Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
9. Aforesaid sealed envelopes were opened and the
affidavits and copies of Aadhar Cards of the petitioners
were perused. From the same, I am satisfied that the
petitioners no. 1 and 2 are residents of Delhi. Summons
u/s 160 Cr. P.C. were also addressed to the petitioners at
Film City, Sector-16 A, Noida.

10. In view of the above facts and circumstances,
the petitioners being residents of Delhi and having
their office addresses of Noida, U.P, could not have
been summoned under Section 160 Cr. P.C. by Sub
Divisional Police Officer, Pampore, Union Territory
of Jammu and Kashmir. The summons issued to them
were without jurisdiction and are therefore, quashed.
However, this shall not come in the way of the
investigating agency to examine the petitioners as
per law at Delhi, if so required. Nor shall quashing
of the impugned summon would have any
reflection on merits of the case.


13.32. By referring to Jamshed Adil Khan, he
submits that Section 160 of the CrPC expressly
confines the power of a police officer to require
attendance to persons falling within the limits of
the officer’s own or an adjoining police station.
He contended that the said territorial restriction
continues under the corresponding provision,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 49 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


Section 179 of the BNSS, which governs the
notices issued in the present cases.

13.33. Applying the said principle to the facts on hand,
learned counsel pointed out that respondent
No. 2 is the investigating police authority of
Vadgaon Police Station, Maharashtra, whereas
the petitioners carry on their business at
Tumkur, Karnataka. Neither the petitioners nor
their place of business falls within the territorial
limits of Vadgaon Police Station or an adjoining
police station. Nevertheless, respondent No. 2
issued notices to the petitioners under Section
179 of the BNSS and caused their statements
to be recorded at Tumkur. Learned counsel
therefore contended that the impugned notices
and the consequential acts of respondent No. 2
contravened the express territorial limitation
under Section 179 of the BNSS and were,
consequently, without jurisdiction and liable to
be set aside.

13.34. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Ravinder Singh
vs. State and another [2010 SCC OnLine Del
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 50 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


4783] , paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-
1 . A limit on issue was issue in this petition to the
respondent/State of Haryana whether under Section
160 Cr.P.C. notice of appearance could be issued to
a person who is outside the State of Haryana since
in this case, notice was issued to the petitioner who
was living in Delhi. Section 160 Cr.P.C. reads as
under:—
“Police officer's power to require attendance of
witnesses?

(1) Any police officer making an investigation under
this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the
attendance before himself or any person being
within the limits of his own or any adjoining station
who, from the information given or otherwise,
appears to be acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case; and such person shall
attend as so required:

Provided that no male person under the age of
fifteen years or woman shall be required to attend
at any place other than the place in which such
male person or woman resides.

(2) The State Government may, by rules made in
this behalf, provide for the payment by the police
officer of the reasonable expenses of every person,
attending under sub-section (1) at any place other
than his residence.

2. Reading of this Section makes it abundantly clear
that notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. can be issued
by an Investigating Officer or the police person
concerned to a person residing within his own
jurisdiction and at the most in the adjoining police
station surrounding that police station. There may
be 10 police stations adjoining that police station.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 51 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


He can issue summons to person residing within the
jurisdiction of all those 10 police stations but
beyond adjoining police stations, his jurisdiction is
not there to issue summons. The Section does
not need help of dictionaries or other
judgments for understanding its meaning
when there is no ambiguity and it is so clearly
written either within his own police station or
in the adjoining police station. I, therefore,
consider that summons issued to the petitioner
under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in Delhi, which is not
adjoining police station of Rewari, is without
jurisdiction and the notice is, therefore, quashed.
However, quashing of this notice under
Section 160 Cr.P.C. shall not prevent the
concerned Investigating Officer from
investigating the case himself, coming to Delhi
and contacting the witnesses or the persons
having information about the case nor shall
quashing of this notice have any other impact
on the merits of the case.

3. The petition stands disposed of.


13.35. By referring to Ravinder Singh, he submits
that the power of a police officer under Section
160 of the CrPC, to require the attendance of a
person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of a case is territorially restricted
to persons residing within the limits of the
officer’s own police station or an adjoining
police station. He contends that a notice issued
to a person residing beyond those territorial
limits is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 52 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


further submits that, while such territorial
restriction does not prevent the investigating
officer from travelling outside the relevant
jurisdiction to contact witnesses or persons
acquainted with the facts of the case, it does
preclude the officer from compelling their
attendance by issuing a notice beyond the
limits prescribed by the provision. Applying the
same principle to Section 179 of the BNSS,
learned counsel contends that the impugned
notices issued by the Maharashtra police to the
petitioners in Karnataka are without
jurisdiction, insofar as the petitioners do not
reside within the limits of the issuing police
station or an adjoining police station.

13.36. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the
case of V.D.Moorthy vs. State of A.P ., [2025
SCC Online AP 3099], paragraphs 11 and 15 to
21, which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:-
11. Section 179 (1) of BNSS would authorize the Police
Officer to secure the presence of any person subject to
two conditions i.e.,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 53 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


(1) if such person appears to be acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of the case, and
(2) such person should reside within the limits of his own
Police Station or any adjoining station.

15. The first qualifying proviso though is giving exception
to some individuals, it does not take away the power of
the Police Officer for issuing the notice under Section
179(1) of BNSS. The said persons are at liberty to
express their view either to attend the Police Station or
giving their statement at their residence. Doubtless to
say that, the language employed under Section 179(1) of
BNSS regarding “ within the limit of his own Police
Station or any adjoining station ” restricts the power
of the Police Officer to issue such notice under Section
179(1) of BNSS to the person who is not residing within
the limits of his own Police Station or any adjoining
station. Section 179(1) of BNSS is not empowering
the Police Officer with unlimited jurisdiction to
issue such notice to any person, who is residing far
away.


16. The argument that the age of the Petitioner is 64
years as per the medical record, has no merit in the light
of the copy of the Aadhar card of the Petitioner, which
shows the date of birth of the individual as 09.05.1960,
and hence, he is aged above 65 years.

17. In the present set of facts, irrespective of the age,
gender, acute ill-health of the Petitioner, the fact remains
that, the Police Officer making an investigation cannot
issue such notice under Section 179(1) of BNSS to the
Petitioner, who is residing at Noida in the State of Uttar
Pradesh. However, it does not preclude the Police Officer
making an investigation to examine such person by
approaching him. In that view, the argument of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 54 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


learned Senior Counsel that issuance of notice
under Section 179(1) of BNSS to the Petitioner, is
subject to the willingness of the Petitioner by the
aid of second proviso, holds no water, as the
question of willingness does not arise due to lack
of power on the Police Officer making investigation
to issue notice to such person, who is not residing
within the limits of his Police Station or adjoining
station.

18. In the present case, the notice issued under
Section 179 of BNSS is without jurisdiction. The
reason being, the governing provision i.e., Section
179(1) of BNSS itself in categorical terms excludes the
jurisdiction of the Police Officer to issue such an order in
writing. Then, the application of qualifying provisos to the
circumstances which are specifically excluded in the
governing clause, does not arise. The qualifying provisos
emphasize the procedure need to be followed for the
persons falling under the scope of Section 179(1) of
BNSS. That being the case, the qualifying proviso Nos. 1
and 2 do not come to the rescue of the Police Officer to
sustain such notice.

19. The proviso to Section 180(3) of BNSS would speak
about the recording of such statement may also be done
by audio-video electronic means. This Court is of the
considered view that, the Police Officer, on his own or on
the request of such person, whose statement he intends
to record, may also record such statement in electronic
means.
20. To sum up:
(1) Power of the Police Officer making an investigation to
have the presence of “any person” before him by issuing
a notice under Section 179 of BNSS is not untrammelled.
(2) The said power is restricted to “any person” residing
in the limits of his own Police Station or adjoining station.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 55 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


(3) Despite the said person residing in the limits of his
Police Station or any other adjoining station, in case of
male below 15 and above 60 years, or woman, mentally
or physically disabled or a person with acute illness
irrespective of their age, shall be examined at the place
of their residence under the first proviso to Section
179(1) of BNSS. But the Police Officer can issue notice to
such person under Section 179(1) of BNSS.
(4) The above persons may be permitted to be examined
at the Police Station subject to their willingness, by the
aid of second proviso to Section 179(1) of BNSS.
(5) Police Officer making an investigation has no
power to issue notice under Section 179(1) of
BNSS to any person who is not residing within the
limits of his own station or any adjoining station.
(6) It does not preclude the Police Officer making
an investigation to examine such person by
approaching him at his place.
21. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
However, the Police Officer making
investigation relating to Crime No. 21 of 2024
on the file of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri,
Guntur District, is at liberty to take necessary
steps to examine the Petitioner at his place
and collect relevant documents, in the
presence of his Advocate, who can sit 10 to 15
feet away from the Petitioner and to record
such statement also by electronic means by
giving prior information to the Petitioner
according to governing rules and law. There
shall be no order as to costs.

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


13.37. By referring to V.D.Moorthy , he submits that
the power conferred upon a police officer under
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 56 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


Section 179(1) of the BNSS to require the
attendance of a person acquainted with the
facts and circumstances of a case is subject to
the express territorial limitation stipulated
therein, namely, that such person must reside
within the limits of the officer’s own police
station or an adjoining police station. He places
particular reliance on paragraphs 15, 18 and 20
of the said judgment to contend that Section
179(1) of the BNSS does not confer an
unrestricted or pan-India power to issue notices
requiring attendance.

13.38. Applying the said principle to the facts of the
present cases, learned counsel submits that
respondent No. 2, being the police authority of
Vadgaon Police Station, Kolhapur, Maharashtra,
could not invoke Section 179(1) of the BNSS to
require the petitioners, who carry on their
business at Tumkur, Karnataka, to attend or
participate in the investigation in the manner
complained of, when they do not reside within
the limits of Vadgaon Police Station or an
adjoining police station. He further submits that
the recording of the petitioners’ statements at
Tumkur does not, by itself, cure the alleged lack
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 57 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


of territorial jurisdiction to issue the impugned
notices. Accordingly, placing reliance on the
aforesaid judgment, learned counsel contends
that the notices issued to the petitioners under
Section 179 of the BNSS are without
jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

13.39. He relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of
Krishan Bans Bhadur and anr., vs. The
State of Himachal Pradesh , [1974 SCC
OnLine HP 39], paragraph 4, which is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-
4. It is evident that the petition must succeed.
Clearly the petitioners are not guilty of any non-
compliance with the orders issued under Section
160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section
160 empowers a police officer making an
investigation to reauire the attendance before
himself of any person “being within the limits
of his own or any adjoining station” who from
the information given or otherwise appears to
be acquainted with the circumstances of the
case and Section 160 adds, such person must
attend as so required From the record of the
present case it is apparent that when the
orders under S. 160 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure were issued the petitioners were
not within the limits of the police Station of
the police officer issuing the order, nor of any
adjoining station. The address of the petitioners
mentioned In the order indicates that they were
present at New Delhi. There is no evidence
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 58 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


whatever to show that they were in Simla at all.
Exfacie, the order under Section 160 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is without
jurisdiction. The order did not proceed from a
public servant legally competent as such public
servant to issue it. Accordingly no offence can be
said to have been committed within the purview of
Section 174 of the Penal Code, 1860.


13.40. By relying on Krishan Bans Bhadur, he
submits that the territorial restriction under
Section 160 of the CrPC, corresponding to
Section 179(1) of the BNSS, limits the authority
of a police officer to require the attendance of a
person who resides within the limits of the
officer’s own or an adjoining police station. He
contends that a notice issued in disregard of
this territorial restriction is without jurisdiction.

13.41. Applying the said principle to the present cases,
learned counsel points out that the petitioners’
business premises are situated at Tumkur,
Karnataka, whereas respondent No. 2 is
attached to Vadgaon Police Station, Kolhapur,
Maharashtra. He submits that the petitioners
reside outside the territorial limits of Vadgaon
Police Station and its adjoining police stations
and, therefore, the notices issued to them
under Section 179(1) of the BNSS fall beyond
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 59 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


the territorial authority conferred by the said
provision. He further contends that the fact that
the petitioners’ business premises are situated
at Tumkur, where their statements were
recorded, is distinct from the question of their
residence, which is the relevant consideration
under Section 179(1) of the BNSS. On this
basis, learned counsel contends that the
impugned notices are without jurisdiction and
liable to be set aside.

13.42. He relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of
Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya
Satynarayana Murthy vs. The State of
Andhra Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine AP 2402],
paragraphs 11, 14, 15 and 27 , which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-
11. Now the crucial question for determination is,
whether the petitioners, who are residing in Hyderabad in
the State of Telangana would come within the ambit of
the phrase “being within the limits of adjoining station”
or not?
14. Before embarking upon an enquiry on the said issue,
at the outset, it is relevant to note that the crime was not
registered by any regular law and order police station in
the State of Andhra Pradesh, which would have its own
delimitations within the State relating to the territorial
limits of the said law and order police station functioning
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 60 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Separate notifications
would be given to each and every law and order police
station functioning within the State of Andhra Pradesh
fixing the territorial limits of the said police stations
within which they have to function. So, when any crime
is registered in the said local police stations, the
Investigating Officer concerned is only empowered to
issue notice to any person under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C.
summoning him for examination as a witness only when
he is residing within the territorial limits of his police
station or within the limits of his adjoining station. All
police stations surrounding the said police station, which
are adjacent to it and abutting it with common boundary
would be adjoining police stations to that police station.
To that extent, law is fairly well-settled and there is no
dispute relating to the legal position in this regard.
15. However, when a crime was registered by CID Police
Station, of a State and when the office of the Crime
Investigation Department which exercises jurisdiction
over the entire State is itself declared as a police station
for the entire State, under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., and
when a similar notification under Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C.
was also issued by the Government of the neighbouring
State, which is adjoining to the said State, declaring the
office of the Crime Investigation Department as a police
station for that entire State, whether the CID Police
Station of the neighbouring State can be construed as an
adjoining station for the purpose of exercising the power
by the Investigating Officer under Section 160 Cr.P.C. is
the main controversy involved in these two Writ
Petitions.
27. The other judgments viz., Pusma Investment (P) Ltd.
v. State of Meghalaya; Sri. Anubrata Mondal v. Union of
India; Kulvinder Singh Kohli v. State of NCT of Delhi;
Jamshed Adil Khan v. Union Territory of Jammu and
Kashmir; Abhishek Banerjee v. Directorate of
Enforcement; Abhishek Banerjee v. Directorate of
Enforcement; Krishan Bans BNhadur v. The State of
Himachal Pradesh; Mathews Peter v. Asst. Police
Inspector, Crime Branch-II, Pune; and Directorate of
Enforcement v. State of West Bengal relied on by the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 61 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


learned counsel for the petitioners are all of no avail to
the case of the petitioners. In all the above referred
judgments, the Courts found that the persons, to whom
notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued by the police
officer, are not residing within the limits of the police
station of the said officer or within the limits of the
adjoining police station. In the present case, the
petitioners are found to be residing within the limits of
the adjoining station.


13.43. By referring to Devagupthapu Hara Venkata
Surya Satynarayana Murthy, he submits that
the territorial authority of a police officer to
issue a notice under Section 160 of the CrPC,
corresponding to Section 179(1) of the BNSS,
depends upon the limits of the officer’s own
police station and those of an adjoining police
station. He submits that, in paragraph 15, the
Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court considered
a distinct question concerning a CID police
station declared to have State-wide jurisdiction
and whether a CID police station in a
neighbouring State could be treated as an
adjoining station, he submits that even then it
is only the adjoining police station in the state
of Karnataka to Maharashtra which could be
regarded as adjoining, Tumkur not being
adjoining cannot be treated as such. According
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 62 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


to learned counsel, that exceptional question
does not arise in the present cases, as
respondent No. 2 is attached to Vadgaon Police
Station, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, and no case is
pleaded that the said police station has been
notified as a CID police station exercising State-
wide jurisdiction.

13.44. Learned counsel further submits that, as
explained in paragraph 14 of the said
judgment, the power to issue a notice under
the corresponding provision is territorially
restricted and cannot be exercised in respect of
a person residing outside the limits of the
officer’s own or an adjoining police station. He
contends that the petitioners’ business
premises at Tumkur, Karnataka, must be
distinguished from their residence, which is the
relevant consideration under Section 179(1) of
the BNSS. On the premise that the petitioners
reside outside the territorial limits contemplated
by the said provision, learned counsel argues
that the impugned notices are without
jurisdiction. He submits that the CID exception
considered in the judgment does not displace
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 63 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


this contention in the absence of comparable
circumstances in the present cases.

13.45. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Anant
Brahmachari vs. Union of India & ors.,
[2012 SCC OnLine Del 1680], paragraph 12 ,
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
12. Section 3(1) of the NIA Act starts with a non-
obstante clause providing that notwithstanding anything
in the Police Act, 1861, the Central Government may
constitute a special agency for investigation and
prosecution of offences under the Act specified in the
schedule. Further, subject to any orders which the
Central Government may make in this behalf, officers of
the agency shall have throughout India in relation to the
investigation of scheduled offences and arrest of the
person concerned in such offences, all powers, duties,
privileges and liabilities which Police officers have in
connection with the investigation of the offences
committed therein. Thus, an officer of the NIA has
jurisdiction to investigate and arrest any person relating
to scheduled offences anywhere in India coupled with all
the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities of a Police
Officer. Sub-Section (3) of Section 3, NIA Act does not
restrict the power of the Police Officer to investigate
beyond the jurisdictional area where he is present and he
can exercise any of the powers of a Police Officer of the
Police Station in the area in which he is present for the
time being and he would be deemed to be an officer in-
charge of the Police Station discharging the functions of
such an officer within the limits of the Station. Sub-
Section 3 supplements Sub-Section (2) by permitting any
place where officer of the NIA is investigating to be
treated as a Police Station and the investigating Officer
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 64 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


the officer in-charge of the said Police Station. Sub-
Section (3) does not override or restrict the powers of an
officer of the agency to investigate in relation to the
scheduled offences and exercises all powers, duties,
privileges and liabilities of a Police officer throughout
India in relation to the investigation of the said offence.
Further, NIA Act is a special enactment. The
provisions under the NIA Act will override the provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.


13.46. By referring to Anant Brahmachari , he
submits that the nationwide investigative
powers recognised in the said judgment were
conferred upon officers of the National
Investigation Agency by the express provisions
of Section 3 of the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008 (for short ‘NIA Act’), which is
a special enactment. He contends that the said
decision does not confer a similar authority
upon an ordinary police officer investigating a
crime registered within a particular State.

13.47. Applying the said distinction to the present
cases, learned counsel points out that
respondent No. 2 is attached to Vadgaon Police
Station, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, and is
investigating Crime No. 446/2025 registered at
the said police station, whereas the petitioners’
business premises are situated at Tumkur,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 65 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


Karnataka. He submits that, unlike the officers
of the NIA considered in Anant Brahmachari,
respondent No. 2 has not been shown to
possess any special statutory authority enabling
him to disregard the territorial restriction under
Section 179 of the BNSS. He therefore contends
that the mere fact that the crime was
registered in Maharashtra does not, by itself,
empower respondent No. 2 to issue notices
under Section 179 of the BNSS to persons
residing beyond the limits of his own or an
adjoining police station. On this basis, learned
counsel submits that the impugned notices and
the consequential investigative steps
undertaken at Tumkur are without jurisdiction.

13.48. He refers to Section 186 of the BNSS, which
was earlier Section 166 of the CrPC, both of
which are reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
186. When officer in charge of police station may
require another to issue search-warrant.
(1)An officer in charge of a police station or a police
officer not being below the rank of sub-inspector making
an investigation may require an officer in charge of
another police station, whether in the same or a different
district, to cause a search to be made in any place, in
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 66 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


any case in which the former officer might cause such
search to be made, within the limits of his own station.

(2)Such officer, on being so required, shall proceed
according to the provisions of section 185, and shall
forward the thing found, if any, to the officer at whose
request the search was made.

(3)Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay
occasioned by requiring an officer in charge of another
police station to cause a search to be made under sub-
section (1) might result in evidence of the commission of
an offence being concealed or destroyed, it shall be
lawful for an officer in charge of a police station or a
police officer making any investigation under this Chapter
to search, or cause to be searched, any place in the
limits of another police station in accordance with the
provisions of section 185, as if such place were within the
limits of his own police station.

(4)Any officer conducting a search under sub-section (3)
shall forthwith send notice of the search to the officer in
charge of the police station within the limits of which
such place is situate, and shall also send with such notice
a copy of the list (if any) prepared under section 103,
and shall also send to the nearest Magistrate empowered
to take cognizance of the offence, copies of the records
referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 185.

(5)The owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on
application, be furnished free of cost with a copy of any
record sent to the Magistrate under sub-section (4).


13.49. Section 166 of the CrPC, is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 67 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


166. When officer in charge of police station
may require another to issue search-
warrant .—(1) An officer in charge of a police
station or a police officer not being below the rank
of sub-inspector making an investigation may
require an officer in charge of another police
station, whether in the same or a different district,
to cause a search to be made in any place, in any
case in which the former officer might cause such
search to be made, within the limits of his own
station.
(2) Such officer, on being so required, shall proceed
according to the provisions of section 165, and shall
forward the thing found, if any, to the officer at
whose request the search was made.
(3) Whenever there is reason to believe that the
delay occasioned by requiring an officer in charge of
another police station to cause a search to be made
under sub-section (1) might result in evidence of
the commission of an offence being concealed or
destroyed, it shall be lawful for an officer in charge
of a police station or a police officer making any
investigation under this Chapter to search, or cause
to be searched, any place in the limits of another
police station in accordance with the provisions of
section 165, as if such place were within the limits
of his own police station.
(4) Any officer conducting a search under sub-
section (3) shall forthwith send notice of the search
to the officer in charge of the police station within
the limits of which such place is situate, and shall
also send with such notice a copy of the list (if any)
prepared under section 100, and shall also send to
the nearest Magistrate empowered to take
cognizance of the offence, copies of the records
referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3) of section
165.
(5) The owner or occupier of the place searched
shall, on application, be furnished free of cost with a
copy of any record sent to the Magistrate under
sub-section (4).
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 68 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025




13.50. He refers to Section 186 of the BNSS,
corresponding to Section 166 of the CrPC,
which provides for a search to be conducted in
the territorial limits of another police station at
the request of the investigating police officer,
subject to the procedure prescribed therein.

13.51. The corresponding provision, namely Section
166 of the CrPC, is also relied upon by learned
counsel in support of his submissions
concerning the exercise of investigative powers
beyond the territorial limits of the police station
concerned.

13.52. By referring to Section 186 of the BNSS,
learned counsel submits that the provision
prescribes a statutory mechanism for
conducting a search within the limits of another
police station. Under sub-section (1), the
investigating officer may require the officer in
charge of the other police station to cause the
search to be conducted. He further submits that
sub-section (3) permits the investigating officer
to conduct or cause such search to be
conducted directly within the limits of another
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 69 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


police station only where there is reason to
believe that the delay occasioned by seeking
the assistance of the officer in charge of that
police station may result in the concealment or
destruction of evidence, and the search is
otherwise conducted in accordance with the
prescribed procedure.

13.53. Applying the said provision to the facts of the
present cases, learned counsel contends that
the Maharashtra police officials, having
undertaken investigative steps at the
petitioners’ business premises at Tumkur,
Karnataka, were required to act in accordance
with the applicable statutory procedure
governing the exercise of investigative powers
beyond their ordinary territorial limits. He
submits that, in the absence of circumstances
attracting the urgency contemplated under
Section 186(3) of the BNSS, the said provision
cannot be invoked to justify a direct search
within the jurisdiction of another police station.
He accordingly relies upon the provision in
support of his contention that the legality of the
investigative steps undertaken by respondent
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 70 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


No. 2 in Karnataka must be tested against the
applicable statutory requirements.

13.54. Learned counsel submits that, although the
vehicle was intercepted on 19.08.2025, the
police officials from Maharashtra visited the
petitioners’ premises at Tumkur only on
21.08.2025, after a lapse of two days. He
contends that the intervening period afforded
sufficient opportunity to seek the assistance of
the local police in Karnataka in accordance with
the procedure contemplated under Section
186(1) of the BNSS. Therefore, according to
learned counsel, there was no urgency
warranting the direct exercise of search powers
within the jurisdiction of another police station
under Section 186(3) of the BNSS, which
applies where delay in obtaining such
assistance may result in the concealment or
destruction of evidence. On this basis, he
submits that the Maharashtra police officials
cannot rely upon the urgency exception under
Section 186(3) to justify their actions at the
petitioners’ premises.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 71 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.55. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Ronny Allias Ronald
James Alwaris and Others vs. State of
Maharashtra [(1998) 3 SCC 625], paragraph
29, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
29. Section 166 is an enabling provision, which
enables an officer in charge of a police station to
require another to issue search warrant. Sub-section
(3) of Section 166 provides that whenever there is a
reason to believe that by requiring an officer in charge of
another police station to cause a search to be made
under sub-section (1) of that section might occasion
delay and result in evidence of the commission of an
offence being concealed or destroyed, it shall be lawful
for the investigating officer or team making investigation
under Chapter XII to search or cause to search any place
in the limits of another police station in accordance with
the provisions of Section 165 CrPC as if such place were
within the limits of his own police station. Sub-section
(4) requires that after conducting the search as
contemplated under sub-section (3), the officer
shall forthwith send a notice to the officer in
charge of the police station within the limits of
such place and a copy of the list, if any, prepared
under Section 100 to that police station and to the
nearest magistrate empowered to take cognizance
of the offence along with the copies of the record
referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section
165. When the Investigating Officer (PW 83) was
questioned on this aspect, he replied that he wrote two
letters to the police station in which the articles were
seized. However, what is pointed out before us is that
the copies of the letters sent to the other police station in
whose jurisdiction the search and seizures were made,
had not been produced. We find no substance in this
submission. The witness stated that he has sent the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 72 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


letter to the police station concerned, therefore,
the presumption under Illustration (e) of Section
114 of the Evidence Act would arise and the official
acts would be deemed to have been performed
regularly. There is thus no non-compliance of the
aforementioned provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure.


13.56. By relying on Ronny , he submits that Section
166 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 186
of the BNSS, provides a statutory mechanism
for conducting searches within the territorial
limits of another police station. He places
reliance on paragraph 29 of the said judgment,
which explains that an investigating officer may
directly conduct or cause a search to be
conducted within the limits of another police
station under the urgency exception only where
there is reason to believe that the delay
occasioned by seeking the assistance of the
officer in charge of that police station may
result in the concealment or destruction of
evidence. He further points out that the
provision requires compliance with the
consequential procedural safeguards, including
prompt intimation to the police station
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 73 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


concerned and the forwarding of the prescribed
records.

13.57. Applying the said principle to the present cases,
learned counsel submits that the vehicle was
intercepted on 19.08.2025, whereas the
Maharashtra police officials visited the
petitioners’ premises at Tumkur, Karnataka,
only on 21.08.2025. He contends that the
intervening period afforded sufficient
opportunity to seek the assistance of the local
police in Karnataka and that no circumstances
have been demonstrated to indicate that such a
course would have occasioned delay likely to
result in the concealment or destruction of
evidence. Accordingly, he argues that the
urgency exception under Section 186(3) of the
BNSS was not available to justify any search
conducted directly within the jurisdiction of
another police station, and that the legality of
the actions undertaken at the petitioners’
premises must be examined in light of the
statutory procedure and safeguards prescribed
under the said provision.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 74 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.58. His submission is that Section 186 regulates the
execution of warrants beyond the territorial
jurisdiction requiring safeguards to be adhered
to, which would in turn require
intimation/assistance from the local
jurisdictional Magistrate or an endorsement
from the local Executive Magistrate or police
authority.

13.59. He refers to Section 45 of the BNSS and earlier
Section 48 of the CrPC. Section 45 of the BNSS
is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:-.
45. Pursuit of offenders into other
jurisdictions– A police officer may, for the purpose
of arresting without warrant any person whom he is
authorised to arrest, pursue such person into any
place in India.


13.60. Section 48 of the CrPC, is reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:-.
48. Pursuit of offenders into other
jurisdictions.— A police officer may, for the
purpose of arresting without warrant any person
whom he is authorised to arrest, pursue such
person into any place in India.


13.61. By referring to Section 45 of BNSS, his
submission is that a police officer has the power
to arrest an offender at any place in India.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 75 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.62. However, even this power is subject to
safeguards and protocols in terms of Sections
57, 58, 59 and 60 of the BNSS, which are
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
57. Person arrested to be taken before Magistrate
or officer in charge of police station.
A police officer making an arrest without warrant shall,
without unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions
herein contained as to bail, take or send the person
arrested before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the
case, or before the officer in charge of a police station.
58. Person arrested not to be detained more than
twenty-four hours.
No police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested
without warrant for a longer period than under all the
circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period
shall not, in the absence of a special order of a
Magistrate under section 187, exceed twenty-four hours
exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the
place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court, whether having
jurisdiction or not.
59. Police to report apprehensions.
Officers in charge of police stations shall report to the
District Magistrate, or, if he so directs, to the Sub-
divisional Magistrate, the cases of all persons arrested
without warrant, within the limits of their respective
stations, whether such persons have been admitted to
bail or otherwise.
60. Discharge of person apprehended.
No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall
be discharged except on his bond, or bail bond, or under
the special order of a Magistrate.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 76 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.63. By relying on Sections 45, 57, 58, 59 and 60 of
the BNSS he submits that although Section 45
authorises a police officer to pursue an offender
into any place in India for the purpose of
effecting an arrest without warrant, where the
officer is otherwise authorised by law to make
such arrest, the exercise of that power is
subject to the statutory safeguards governing
arrest, custody, production before the
competent Magistrate and reporting of
apprehensions. He contends that the express
provision permitting pursuit across territorial
boundaries for the limited purpose of arrest
cannot be construed as conferring an
unrestricted authority upon a police officer to
exercise all investigative powers throughout
India, irrespective of the territorial limitations
prescribed by the BNSS.

13.64. Applying the said principle to the present cases,
learned counsel submits that respondent No. 2,
being attached to Vadgaon Police Station,
Kolhapur, Maharashtra, cannot rely upon
Section 45 of the BNSS to justify the issuance
of notices under Section 179 of the BNSS or the
undertaking of other investigative steps at the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 77 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


petitioners’ premises at Tumkur, Karnataka. He
argues that the power to pursue an offender for
arrest is distinct from the power to require
attendance for examination or to undertake
searches and other investigative measures
within the jurisdiction of another police station,
each of which must be exercised in accordance
with the applicable statutory provisions.
Accordingly, he submits that Section 45 does
not dispense with compliance with the territorial
and procedural requirements governing the
impugned actions.

13.65. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Sandeep Kumar
vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and
others, [2019 SCC OnLine Del 11901],
paragraphs 15 and 16, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:-
15. The Committee has, after examining all of the above
material in detail, given detailed suggestions as to the
protocol to be followed by the police in the event of inter-
state arrest. These read as under:
“1. The police officer after assignment of the case to him,
must seek prior permission/sanction of the
higher/superior officers in writing or on phone (in case of
urgency) to go out of State/UT to carry out investigation.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 78 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


2. In a case when the police officer decides to effect an
arrest, he must set out the facts and record reasons in
writing disclosing the satisfaction that arrest is necessary
for the purpose of investigation. At first instance, he
should move the Jurisdictional Magistrate to seek
arrest/search warrants under Section 78 and 79 CrPC
except in emergent cases when the time taken is likely to
result in escape of the accused or disappearance of
incriminating evidence or the procurement of
arrest/search warrant would defeat the purpose. The
police officer must record reasons as to what were the
compelling reasons to visit other State without getting
arrest/search warrants.
3. Before proceeding outside the State, the police officer
must make a comprehensive departure entry in the Daily
Diary of his Police Station. It should contain names of the
police officials and private individuals accompanying him;
vehicle number; purpose of visit; specific place(s) to be
visited; time and date of departure.
4. If the possible arrestee is a female, a lady police
officer be made part of the team. The police officers
should take their identity cards with them. All police
officers in the team should be in uniform; bear accurate,
visible and clear identification and name tags with their
designations.
5. Before visiting the other State, the police officer
must endeavour to establish contact with the local
Police Station in whose jurisdiction he is to conduct
the investigation. He must carry with him the
translated copies of the Complaint/FIR and other
documents in the language of the State which he intends
to visit.
6. After reaching the destination, first of all, he
should inform the concerned police station of the
purpose of his visit to seek assistance and co-
operation. The concerned SHO should provide/render all
legal assistance to him. Entry to this effect must be made
at the said police station.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 79 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


7. After reaching the spot of investigation, search, if any
should be strictly conducted in compliance of the
procedure laid down u/s 100 CrPC All endeavour should
be made to join independent public witnesses from the
neighbourhood. In case of arrest, the police officer must
follow the procedure u/s 41A and 41B and Section 50
and 51 CrPC The process of arrest carried out by the
police must be in compliance with the guidelines given in
DK Basu case (Supra) and the provisions of CrPC.
8. The arrested person must be given an opportunity to
consult his lawyer before he is taken out of State.
9. While returning, the police officer must visit the local
police station and cause an entry made in the Daily Diary
specifying the name and address of the person(s) being
taken out of the State; articles if any, recovered. The
victim's name be also indicated.
10. Endeavor should be made to obtain transit remand
after producing the arrestee before the nearest
Magistrate unless exigencies of the situation warrant
otherwise and the person can be produced before the
Magistrate having jurisdiction of the case without
infringing the mandate of S. 56 and 57 of CrPC within 24
hours.
11. The Magistrate before whom the arrestee is
produced, must apply his mind to the facts of the case
and should not grant transit remand mechanically. He
must satisfy himself that there exists material in the form
of entries in the case diary that justifies the prayer for
transit remand. The act of directing remand of an
accused is fundamentally a judicial decision. The
Magistrate does not act in executive capacity while
ordering detention of the accused. He must ensure that
requirements of S. 41 (l)(b) are satisfied. The police
officer must send the case diary along with the remand
report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual
scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant
for police remand or justification for judicial remand or
there is no need for any remand at all. The Magistrate
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 80 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


should briefly set out reasons for his decision. (Manubhai
Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314)
12. Another mandatory procedural requirement for the
Magistrate considering a transit remand application is
spelt out in Article 22 (1) of Constitution of India. This
entitles the person arrested to be informed as soon as
may be the grounds of such arrest. The Magistrate has to
ensure that the arrested person is not denied the right to
consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his
choice. The Magistrate should ask the person arrested
brought before him whether in fact he has been informed
of the grounds of arrest and whether he requires to
consult and be defended by any legal practitioner of his
choice. (DK Basu, Supra) After the pronouncement of
this judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, new
Sections 41A to 41D have been added to prevent
unnecessary arrest and misuse of powers. Denying a
person of his liberty is a serious matter.
13. In terms of S. 41C, control rooms be established in
every district. Names and addresses of the persons
arrested and designation of the police officers who made
the arrest be displayed. Control Room at State level must
collect details of the persons so arrested.
14. The police officer must record all the proceedings
conducted by him at the spot and prepare an ‘arrest
memo’ indicating time, date of arrest and name of the
relation/friend to whom intimation of arrest has been
given. It must reveal the reasons for arrest.
15. Since the arrestee is to be taken out of his State to a
place away where he may not have any acquaintance, he
may be permitted to take along with him (if possible), his
family member/acquaintance to remain with him till he is
produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Such family
member would be able to arrange legal assistance for
him.
16. The arrested person must be produced before the
jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest, in any case, not
beyond 24 hours from the date of arrest excluding the
journey time so that arrest of such person and his
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 81 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


detention, if necessary, may be justified by a judicial
order. The 24 hours period prescribed u/s 57 CrPC is the
outermost limit beyond which a person cannot be
detained in police custody. It does not empower a police
officer to keep a person in police station a minute longer
than is necessary for the purpose of investigation and it
does not give him an absolute right to keep a person till
24 hours.
17. On arrival at the police station, the police officer
must make an arrival entry in the record and indicate the
investigation carried out by him, the person arrested and
the articles recovered. He should also inform his senior
police officers/SHO concerned about it immediately. The
superior police officer shall personally supervise such
investigation.
18. The police officer should effect arrest u/s 41(l)(b)
CrPC only when he has reasonable suspicion and credible
information. He must satisfy himself about the existence
of the material to effect arrest. There must be definite
facts or averments as distinguished from vague surmises
or personal feelings. The materials before him must be
sufficient to cause a bona-fide belief. He cannot take
shelter under another person's belief or judgment. He
must affect arrest at his own risk and responsibility as
the effect of illegal arrest could be commission of offence
of wrongful confinement punishable u/s 342 IPC. Burden
lies on the IO to satisfy the Court about his bona-fide. No
arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police
officer to do so. Denying a person of his liberty is a
serious matter.
19. Medical examination soon after arrest to avoid
possibility of physical torture during custody should be
conducted.
20. The IO must maintain a complete and comprehensive
case diary indicating the investigation carried out by him.
21. The log book of the vehicle used for transportation
must be maintained and signed. The IO must indicate
whether the vehicle was official or a private one; name of
its driver and how and by whom it was arranged. Only
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 82 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


official vehicle should be used for transportation to the
extent possible.
22. At the time of recovery of the prosecutrix, the police
officer, if he is satisfied that she is adult, should ascertain
from her at the spot, whether she was present there with
her free will. If the victim/prosecutrix is not willing to
accompany the police officer or her relatives, the police
officer must not exert force on the prosecutrix to take
her away against her wishes. However, if the
prosecutrix/victim of her own accord expresses
willingness to accompany the police officer/relatives, her
consent in writing should be obtained at the spot.
23. In case where the police officer finds the
victim/prosecutrix to be a ‘minor’, soon after recovery,
she should be produced before the local Child Welfare
Committee for further decision regarding her custody.
She must not be made to stay in the Police Station
during night hours.
24. Statement of the prosecutrix u/s 164 CrPC must be
recorded at the earliest.
25. MHA/Central Govt/Commissioner of Police must
frame suitable guidelines for police officers to render all
suitable assistance. The failure to adhere to the
rules/guidelines should render the police officer liable for
departmental action as well as contempt of the Court.
26. The Public Prosecutor should provide required
assistance to the police officer visiting his State at the
time of seeking transit remand.
27. The MHA/State Government should circulate the
Rules/Guidelines/Notifications, etc. from time to time to
the police officers in the State to create awareness.
Periodically training should be provided to the police
officers to sensitize them.
28. Instructions/Guidelines of similar nature should exist
in all the States/UTs for speedy, smooth and effective
inter-State investigation.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 83 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


29. The delinquent police officer can be directed to pay
compensation under the public law and by way of strict
liability.”
16. There is a further suggestion by way of addition to
the report which reads as under:
“In partial modification of the joint report, it is
suggested that if, in case of urgency or other
considerations in the interest of investigation, it is
not found feasible to inform the police station
encompassing the jurisdiction of the search,
seizure, arrest or investigation before the event,
this should be done soon after the search, seizure,
arrest, etc. has been conducted. In all cases a diary
entry should mandatorily be made in the police
station of jurisdiction. Extant instructions of
various state forces such as Karnataka already
include this provision of informing after the event.
Section 166 CrPC also relevantly requires that if a search
has to be conducted in another police station, the SHO
may require the SHO of that police jurisdiction to do the
needful. In case there are chances of loss of evidence, he
may himself get the search conducted and forthwith
inform the officer of the concerned police station.”


13.66. By relying on Sandeep Kumar , his submission
is that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had
formed a committee headed by a retired High
Court Judge to look into the issue of procedure
to be followed while one State Police goes into
another State for the purpose of investigation
and it is this recommendation which has been
accepted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as
extracted supra.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 84 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025



13.67. He submits that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court
considered the recommendations concerning
the procedure and safeguards to be followed by
police officers while undertaking inter-State
police operations. He draws the attention of this
Court to the recommendations concerning prior
approval from superior officers, recording of
departure entries, coordination with the local
police station, seeking assistance and
cooperation of the local police, compliance with
the procedure governing search and seizure,
and recording the relevant proceedings in the
police records. He also relies upon the
recommendation that, where urgency or other
considerations make it impracticable to inform
the police station having territorial jurisdiction
before undertaking a search, seizure, arrest or
investigation, such intimation should be given
soon thereafter and the requisite entry should
be made in the records of the local police
station.

13.68. By relying upon Sandeep Kumar , learned
counsel submits that inter-State investigation,
though permissible in law, is not an exercise of
unregulated or unrestricted police power.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 85 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


According to him, the statutory scheme under
the BNSS, corresponding to the relevant
provisions of the CrPC, recognises specific
circumstances in which investigative powers
may be exercised beyond the ordinary
territorial jurisdiction of a police station and
prescribes the procedure to be followed in such
circumstances. He contends that the ordinary
territorial limits of a police station cannot be
disregarded merely because a case has been
registered in another State and that the
exercise of any power beyond such limits must
be traceable to statutory authority and must
conform to the applicable procedural
safeguards.

13.69. Learned counsel further submits that the
constitutional distribution of legislative and
executive authority relating to criminal law,
criminal procedure and police administration
must also be borne in mind while examining the
exercise of police powers across State
boundaries. He refers to Entries 1 and 2 of List
III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution
of India, Entry 2 of List II and Entry 80 of List I,
and contends that the exercise of police powers
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified

- 86 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60505
WP No. 31910 of 2025
C/W WP No. 31320 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010676422025


beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State
concerned must be understood in the context of
the constitutional scheme and the applicable
statutory provisions. He submits that the
existence of an investigation in the State of
Maharashtra does not, by itself, confer an
unrestricted authority upon the police attached
to Vadgaon Police Station to undertake every
investigative step in the State of Karnataka
without following the procedure prescribed by
law.
Section 179 of the BNSS – Attendance of persons
for examination

13.70. Learned counsel submits that Section 179 of
the BNSS, governs the power of a police officer
to require the attendance of persons acquainted
with the facts and circumstances of a case for
examination. He contends that the provision
incorporates a territorial qualification
concerning the residence of the person whose
attendance is required and that the said
qualification must be given effect to while
determining the validity of a notice issued
thereunder. According to learned counsel, the
power to require attendance cannot be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
30/10/2026, 17:10, Bengaluru)
Verified