Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005602025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/7/2025 Captain Satish Pathania S/o M.S. Pathania R/o 21D, DG II, Vikaspuri New Delhi - 110018 VERSUS State of Mizoram and 2 Ors. Through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Mizoram Mizoram Secretariat, MINECO Aizawl - 796001 2:Anti-Corruption Bureau Aizawl Through the Director Anti-Corruption Bureau MINECO Khatla Aizawl Mizoram 3:Superintendent of Police (ACB) Anti-Corruption Bureau Aizawl Govt. of Mizoram MINECO Khatla Aizawl Mizora Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu Advocate for the Respondent : P.P./Addl.PP, Mizoram for R1 to R3 Page No.# 2/4 JUDGMENT / ORDER Date : --02.09.2025 BEFORE HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Heard Mr. Faris Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Linda Fawmbal, learned P.P. for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to quash the undated Notice issued under section 179 BNSS in Criminal Case No.3/2023 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau Aizawl Mizoram under section 11/13(2) read with section 13(1) (a) of P.C Act and under section 120(B)/406/409/420 IPC. 3. The case of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner have been served with the undated summon notice under section 179 BNNS by the Anti-Corruption Bureau) Aizawl Mizoram in connection with Criminal Case No.3/2023. It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and therefore the issuance of such summons is patently illegal and without jurisdiction and in direct violation of statutory provisions as provided under section 179 BNSS which clearly provides that a Police Officer will require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station who appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The petitioner’s case is that he is from Delhi and does not reside within the jurisdictional limits of Aizawl Police Station or any adjoining police station in Mizoram. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is aged over 65 years and in view of his age and place of residence, he falls squarely within the category of persons Page No.# 3/4 explicitly protected under section 171(1) BNSS. It is the submission of the petitioner that issuance of such summons violates the express mandate of law and infringes his fundamental right to life, dignity and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and this summons reflects a clear abuse of powers and is indicative of a mechanical and arbitrary exercise of authority. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of Directorate of Enforcement and Others vs State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2021 SCC Online Del 5603 wherin the High Court of Delhi has held that “ 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 Court subsequently held that if the respondents lack the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, the entire case of the respondents falls”. 6. In view of the above submissions therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned undated notice under section 179 of the BNSS against the petitioner may be quashed and set aside. Page No.# 4/4 7. The learned P.P.Ms. Linda Fawmbal has appeared for the State and fairly submitted that the notice under section 179 BNSS has been issued wrongly and under the wrong provisions of law as the petitioner is not a witness but he is an accused person in the present case. 8. From a plain reading of Section 179 BNSS, it is evident that for the purpose of investigation, a Police Officer can require attendance of a person situated within the limits of his own police station or that of the adjoining police station and not someone who is situated beyond the territorial limits. 9. This Court is satisfied that the petitioner is a resident of Delhi and does not reside within the jurisdiction of the Aizawl Police Station or the jurisdiction of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. 10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner being a resident of Delhi and also being a person above the age of 65 years, the impugned notice under section 179 BNSS is quashed and set aside. The quashing of the impugned summon shall not have any reflection on the merit of the case. JUDGE Comparing Assistant