APHC010549372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Thirteenth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Criminal Petition No: 10668 of 2025 Between: Dhanunjaya Reddy Rakkasi ...Petitioner / accused and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner / accused: 1. V. Maheswar Reddy Counsel for the respondent No.1: 1. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: 2 Crl.P.No.10668 of 2025 ORDER: The criminal petition is filed to quash the notice dated 12.10.2025 in connection with F.I.R.No.341 of 2025 dated 10.10.2025 on the file of the Nellore Rural Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District registered for the offences under Sections 353 (2), 356 (3) r/w 3 (5) of B.N.S. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: On 06.10.2025, the respondent No.2 / complainant reported death of one unknown male person aged about 40-45 at Sadavaripalem, 3rd mile. Basing on the report, V.R.O., Navalakula Gardens lodged a report at Nellore Rural Police Station and the same was registered as Crime No.338 of 2025 under Section 194 of B.N.S.S. Before completion of investigation and before issuance of the post mortem report, a news item was published in Sakshi daily newspaper on 08.10.2025 stating that the person died due to consumption of adulterated liquor. The respondent No.2, alleged that with an intention to defame the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Prohibition and Excise department, the said news item was published by the petitioner. Based on a report of the respondent No.2, a case in Crime No.341 of 2025 under Sections 353 (2), 356 (3) r/w 3 (5) of B.N.S. was registered by the respondent No.1. During the course of investigation, the respondent No.2 was examined and his statement was recorded. On 11.10.2025, a notice was sent to the petitioner‟s office at Vijayawada directing his appearance at 10.30 a.m. on 12.10.2025. Since he was not present at the office, notice was served to the petitioner through WhatsApp to appear before the respondent No.1 on 14.10.2025 at 10.30 a.m. at Nellore Rural Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. 3 Crl.P.No.10668 of 2025 Aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the said notice and directing appearance without following due process of law, this petition is filed to quash the notice. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the police served the notice under Section 179 of B.N.S.S. at night on 12.10.2025 through WhatsApp directing the petitioner to appear on 14.10.2025 at 10.30 a.m. at the Nellore Rural Police Station, stating that the petitioner was not available to serve notice on 11.10.2025 for appearance on 12.10.2025 at 10.30 a.m. He further submitted that the contents of the complaint and the F.I.R. would indicate that the petitioner comes under the description of the accused shown at column No.7 of the F.I.R. as “Incharge of Sakshi Print Media and others” and therefore, though the petitioner is said to be a witness, he is likely to be compelled to be a witness against himself violating Article 20 of the Constitution of India, since the object of summoning is to produce the evidence regarding the subject matter of the imputation. He further submitted that under Section 179 of the B.N.S.S., a police officer cannot summon a person out of the limits of his own or any adjoining station and therefore, summoning the petitioner, who is residing in Hyderabad, i.e., out of the state of the jurisdiction of the S.H.O. concerned, is bad in law. Of course, he further submitted that the offences under the provision of law for which the F.I.R. was registered are not constituted with the allegations in the complaint and that this argument would be taken in appropriate application, but for the present also, it is relevant to mention the same, though not elaborately. 4. While opposing the petition, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that he had no instructions since he was served with the copy of the petition at about 2.10 P.M., today and had no time to get instructions. Basing on the record available and the legal position, 4 Crl.P.No.10668 of 2025 keeping in view the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that appropriate order may be passed as the investigating officer can proceed as per law through appropriate action, though not under the impugned notice. He concedes the fact that the petitioner is shown at the address in Hyderabad as per the notice issued under Section 179 of the B.N.S.S. He submitted that „any person‟ under Section 179 of the B.N.S.S., includes an accused and so an accused also can be summoned, and placed reliance on the decision of this High Court reported in Devagupthapu Hara Venkata Surya Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors1. 5. Perused the record. 6. Obviously, in view of the admitted address of the petitioner, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the S.H.O., Nellore Rural Police Station, to summon the petitioner under Section 179 of the B.N.S.S. Therefore, it is a matter fit to allow the petition. It is always open for the investigating officer to proceed as per law to complete the investigation and no specific liberty is required in this regard. 7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the notice dated 12.10.2025 issued to the petitioner in F.I.R.No.341 of 2025, dated 10.10.2025 on the file of the Nellore Rural Police Station, S.P.S.R. Nellore District is set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.13.10.2025 Issue C.C. by 14.10.2025 1 2022 SCC OnLine AP 2402 5 Crl.P.No.10668 of 2025 b/o NSM 6 Crl.P.No.10668 of 2025 63 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Criminal Petition No: 10668 of 2025 Dt.13.10.2025 Issue C.C. by 14.10.2025 b/o NSM