Karnataka HC Says Maharashtra Police Could Not Compel Tumkur Tobacco Traders To Appear In Kolhapur, Declares Uncoordinated Tumkur Operation Unlawful

Vadgaon Police Station, Maharashtra, registered Crime No. 446/2025 against unknown persons concerning alleged offences under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The petitioners, Karnataka-based traders whose firms and partners were not named in the FIR, received notices requiring them to attend Vadgaon Police Station.

Maharashtra police officers also visited their business premises in Tumkur, recorded the partners’ statements, and allegedly inspected business records and took ledger books or copies.

The Karnataka police were not contacted before, during or after the visit, as confirmed by the State’s counsel; Maharashtra’s authorities, though served, did not appear or produce records of compliance with the relevant procedures.

The petitioners sought to restrain harassment and challenge the notices and investigative steps, but did not seek to quash the FIR or investigation as a whole.

Section 179(1) BNSS authorises an investigating officer to require attendance only of a person within the limits of the officer’s own or an adjoining police station; its provisos do not enlarge that territorial power.

Sections 185 and 186 BNSS govern police searches: a search within another police station’s limits must follow the statutory process, including a request to the local police or, where the urgency conditions are met, a direct search subject to prompt notice and transmission of prescribed records.

Section 180 BNSS permits oral examination but does not, by itself, confer unrestricted authority to undertake investigative operations in another State.

The Court considered the constitutional allocation of police powers, including Entry 2 of List II and Entry 80 of List I, and the observations in Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 9 SCC 551, and State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, as requiring respect for the other State’s jurisdiction and cooperation where applicable.

It also treated Sandeep Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11901, as persuasive guidance on inter-State coordination, while holding that Standing Order No. 576 regulated Karnataka’s own police and did not bind Maharashtra police.

The petitioners’ residence and business were in Karnataka, not within Vadgaon Police Station’s or an adjoining station’s limits. Applying Section 179 and the authorities interpreting its corresponding CrPC provision, the Court held that the notices could not compel their attendance at Vadgaon.

As to the Tumkur operation, the Karnataka police’s non-involvement was confirmed and unrebutted; Maharashtra’s officers produced no records showing compliance with Sections 185 or 186, or explaining any urgent basis for a direct search. The Court therefore held the search-related action, including the inspection and taking of records alleged by the petitioners, unsustainable.

It also treated the recording of statements as part of the same operation, which had been conducted without demonstrated coordination or compliance with applicable safeguards.

The Court clarified that Standing Order No. 576 did not govern Maharashtra’s officers and that the FIR and investigation were not otherwise before it for quashing.

The Section 179 notices were declared unenforceable insofar as they required attendance at Vadgaon, and no coercive or penal action could be taken for non-compliance.

The Tumkur operation, including the recording of statements, inspection of business records and taking of ledger books or copies, was declared unsustainable; the respondents may not rely on the statements as lawfully obtained in that operation, and must account for and return documents retained without lawful authority within 21 days, subject to any lawful order of a competent court or authority.

Before undertaking further investigative operations in Karnataka, respondent No. 2 must give prior written intimation to the jurisdictional Karnataka police station, with the intimation recorded in both stations’ records and a copy kept with the case diary.

The Court declined to restrain all further contact with the petitioners or to quash the FIR or investigation; the investigation may continue in accordance with law.