Karnataka High Court asks State to frame guidelines on issuance of police summons under Section 35 BNSS

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a notice issued by the Bengaluru police summoning a journalist to the police station for a preliminary inquiry without even registering a first information report (FIR) against him..In an order passed on July 19, Justice M Nagaprasanna stayed the notice under Section 41A of the now repealed Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) issued on June 6 by the sub-inspector of Amruthahalli Police Station summoning one Tavaragi Prasad.The Court also directed the State government to frame guidelines for all Station House Officers (SHO), educating them on when such notice under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) that has replaced Section 41A of the CrPC, can be issued.Section 41A deals with notice of appearance before police officer in cases where the arrest of a person is not required..The Court went on to say that both the CrPC and BNSS mandate that such notice must “contain the crime number” and the purpose for which a citizen was being summoned.It further said that while such notice can be transmitted electronically, the SHO must also attach a copy of the FIR with the notice..“The noticee must be aware of why he is being summoned to the Police Station, as summoning to the Police Station is not summoning a person to a happy place. A citizen must know as to why he is being summoned. The information to the citizen cannot be half baked; it must be in full. The notice must contain the crime number and the purpose for which he is being summoned. While it can be transmitted electronically, no fault can be found with that, but it should mention crime number. The duty of the Station House Officer would not stop at mentioning crime number, but he should also attach to the communication, a copy of the FIR, so registered against the notice,” the High Court said..The Court was hearing a petition filed by Prasad questioning the June 6 notice and the subsequent summons.As per the order, Prasad first received a WhatsApp message from the Amruthahalli Police Station on June 6 asking him to appear at the Station. When he asked for the crime number or details of why he was being summoned, Prasad received no answer. On June 10, he again received a WhatsApp message asking him to appear before the police. This time, the notice on WhatsApp mentioned a crime number but gave no details of what the crime pertained to or any other details with respect to the FIR..During the previous hearing on June 11, Justice Nagaprasanna had noted that having gone through the notices, he had realised that the June 6 notice was a bald one and that the police had failed to follow any procedure.“The notice does not refer to any crime registered much less against the petitioner, for him to be summoned. A bald notice under Section 41A of the CrPC is issued to the petitioner,” the Court had said at the time..On July 19, the Court set aside the June 6 notice but permitted the June 10 notice to be sustained.It, however, directed the police to keep in mind the observations made by the Court and execute such notice accordingly..Senior Counsel M Aruna Shyam and advocate Suyog Herele E appeared for Tavaragi Prasad.Government Pleader Harish Ganapathi appeared for the State government..[Read Order]