HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20258 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. The present petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 11.5.2025 under Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. The notice is a part of the investigation in particular Case Crime registered on the First Information Report and the investigation in pursuance to the aforesaid F.I.R. has not been stayed by any Court. The notice under Section 35(3) is a part of the investigation process and there is no jurisdictional error in the notice so as to occasion interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that notice could not have been issued under Section 3/21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2019) as the Act 2019 prohibits investigation by the State Police and the investigation under Act, 2019 can be done only by the competent authority as defined in the Act 2019. It has been argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the notice under Section 35(3) is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is not accepted. The notice as noted earlier is only a part of the investigation process and is not justiciable at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As to whether the petitioner can be charged under Section 3/21 of Act, 2019 can be decided by the concerned Magistrate when a charge sheet in the aforesaid offence is filed by the Investigating Officer. It has been further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Section 111 of the B.N.S. is made out against the petitioner as the ingredients of the said offence do not exist and therefore, the notice under Section 35(3) is without Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishn Kumar, Praveen Shrivastav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ajay Kumar Swarnkar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 10 Others .....Respondent(s) jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. The aforesaid contention is also not accepted. The aforesaid contention is also not accepted. As to whether the ingredients of Section 111 B.N.S are made out or not can be considered only after investigation is complete and a charge sheet along with the evidence in support of the charge sheet is submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer before the concerned Magistrate. The validity of the notice under Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S cannot be considered at this stage in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed. The petitioner has the liberty to challenge the validity of the charge sheet before the appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings which shall be considered by the concerned Court independent of any of the observations made by this Court. September 10, 2025 n.u. CRLP No. 20258 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad