01Facts
The petitioners sought, among other reliefs, registration of an FIR, protection from interference with their possession of a shop, preservation of police-station CCTV footage, and an order preventing police from summoning them orally or by telephone
¶ 1 · pp. 1–2They alleged that Respondent No. 4 repeatedly complained to the police and that the police frequently called the petitioner to the station, causing harassment
¶ 4, 6 · p. 3The Investigating Officer’s report stated that the parties had made numerous complaints against each other—40 by Respondent No. 4 and 15 by the petitioner—and that preliminary inquiries and subsequent action had been taken according to law
¶ 5 · p. 302Issues
i.Whether the Investigating Officer should be restrained from summoning the petitioner orally or by telephone, and required to issue written notice in accordance with law
¶ 6–7 · p. 403Law Applied
The petition invoked Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
¶ 1 · p. 1The Court directed that, if the petitioner was required to attend in response to any further complaint, the Investigating Officer could summon her only by written notice in accordance with law
¶ 7 · p. 4Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
04Reasoning
The Court considered the petitioner’s grievance that she was frequently called to the police station orally or by telephone, alongside the Investigating Officer’s report that both parties had made numerous complaints against each other and that the police had acted on them
¶ 5–6 · p. 3Addressing only the manner in which the petitioner was summoned, the Court directed that any future summons be issued by written notice in accordance with law
¶ 7 · p. 405Holding
The Court directed the Investigating Officer not to summon the petitioner orally or by telephone and required any future summons to be made by written notice in accordance with law
¶ 7 · p. 4The petition was disposed of and the Rule was made absolute accordingly
¶ 8 · p. 4Original Court PDF
SHAHINBANU @ SHABANABANU ABDULREHMAN BELDARvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
