1 APHC010147222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 3392/2025 Between: Sunkara Hari Babu ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA Counsel for the Respondent/complainant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CRIMINAL PETITION No.3392 OF 2025 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed seeking to quash the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in Crime No. 112 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had collected money from the 2nd respondent/ de facto complainant and failed to repay the same, thereby allegedly committing offences under Sections 420, 506, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon him to appear in person along with I.D. proof and any other document supporting the documents in relation to Crime No.112 of 2025 and to cooperate with the investigation. 5. The learned counsel further submits that Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked or issued 3 against the accused for submitting any material that might prejudice their interest, as it would amount to self- incrimination. 6. It is also submitted that there is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 20(3) and that the accused cannot be compelled to give evidence against themselves for the purpose of investigation in a crime in which they are named as accused. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. Sharma &Ors. vs. Satish Chandra &Ors.1 7. Article 20(3) of the Constitution safeguards individuals against the compulsion of self-incrimination. The notice issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which calls upon the petitioner to submit supporting documents, unequivocally violates Article 20(3). 8. The learned counsel also places reliance on the order dated 05.09.2023 in CRL.P. No.5274 of 2023 passed by this Court. This Court, in an identical case, has quashed the notice issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the accused therein. 11954 AIR 300 4 9. Therefore, following the same, the Criminal Petition is allowed, quashing the notice dated 17.03.2025 issued to the petitioner, who is accused in Crime No. 112 of 2025 of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur District, under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt.28.03.2025 BV