ORDER : BUDI HABUNG, J. Heard Mr. J. Tsering Kee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent N o.1. 2. This application has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying for quashing and setting aside the summons dated 11.03.2026 issued by the enguiry officer under Section 179 of the BNSS, whereby the petitioner has been directed to appear before the police station in connection with an alleged complaint against him by one Shri Vergush Nabam. 3. In compliance with the earlier order dated 16.03.2026 passed by this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced the status report of the case. 4. I have perused the contentions made in the petition, the impugned police summons dated 11.03.2026 issued under Section 179 of the BNSS (Annexure-5) and the status report submitted by the Enquiry Officer of Police Station Seijosa. 5. It is not in dispute that the impugned police summons issued under Section 179 of the BNSS does not disclose any FIR number or registered case. As per the status report, no FIR has yet been registered against the petitioner, and only a preliminary enquiry was being conducted. Further, the complainant has already been advised by the Enquiry Officer to seek remedy before the Civil Court. The status report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is taken on record and parked as Document 'X for identification. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that, in the absence of disclosure of any registered police station case, the issuance of summons/notice under Section 179 of the BNSS is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. 7. In support of his submissions, Mr. Tsering Kee, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , and the decision in R. Somasundaram vs. State of Tamil Nadu , reported in 2025 Supreme (Mad) 5193 , wherein it has been held that a summons under Section 179 of the BNSS cannot be issued without registration of an FIR. 8. In view of the above, the only issue for consideration in the present petition is whether a summons/notice under Section 179 of the BNSS, 2023 can be issued in the absence of registration of an FIR and commencement of investigation. 9. 8. In view of the above, the only issue for consideration in the present petition is whether a summons/notice under Section 179 of the BNSS, 2023 can be issued in the absence of registration of an FIR and commencement of investigation. 9. Section 179 of the BNSS,2023 reads as under: "179. Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses. (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his own or any adoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required: 10. Thus, Section 179 of the BNSS empowers the police to require the attendance of a person acquainted with the facts of a case during the course of investigation. 11, The law is well settled that investigation commences only upon registration of an FIR relating to a cognizable offence, as laid down in Lalita Kumari (Supra). Further, in paragraph 120.5 thereof, it has been held that "the scope of a preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received, but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence, and thus, such inguiry cannot partake the character of an investigation. 12. Mr. Ete, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has, in addition, relied upon various High Court decisions, including Preetham vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr., reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 6317, particularly paragraphs 2 and 5 thereof, which are reproduced bellow: 2. Without going into the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the face of it, summons issued by the 1st respondent police without any authority and it has to be quashed. Further, this Court in Crl.O.P N o.28273 and 28274 of 2007, reported in 2010 SCC Online Mad 2718, has already held that without registration of FIR, no summons can be issued under Section 160 and 91 CrP.C, which has been dealt with elaborately and this court had given a positive direction to the investigating agency while quashing summons issued under Section 160 ad 91 of CrPC. and also placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in Crl.O.P. N o. 10929 of 2019, dated 04.06.2019, wherein, clearly held as follows: "9. In view of the above, the impugned summons issued by the first respondent is without jurisdiction and hence, the same is quashed. It is made clear that it is left open to the first respondent to take further action on the complaint pending before it, strictly in accordance with the guidelines given by the Honble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2013) 6 CTC 353 " 5. This court, considering the submissions and on perusal of materials, the Apex Court as wellas this court has already held that in a case of enquiry, summons, can be issued only following Lalitha Kumari case and not under Section 160 ad 91 of CrP.C. In view of the same, summons issued by the respondent police is quashed giving liberty to the 1 respondent police to take further action on the complaint of 2nd respondent in acordance with law as stated above. Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently connected Crl.M .P. is closed," 13. He has also relied upon the decision in R. Somasundaram vs. State of Tamil N adu, reported in 2025 Supreme (Mad) 5193 , the relevant portions of which (paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 24) are reproduced herein below. "14. The next issue is whether summons/notice can be issued at the preliminary enquiry stage. 15. It is trite that issuance of summons to witnesses is governed by Section 179 of BNSS (Section 160 of G:PC.), which is applicable only during the course of investigation. Section 179 of BNSS reads as under: (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter may, by order in writing, require the attendance before himself of any person being within the limits of his Own or any adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise, appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; and such person shall attend as so required:" 16. The above provision makes it clear that the summoning of witnesses can be done by the police officer only during the process of investigation and investigation, as defined under Section 2(1) of BNSS, commences only after registration of an FIR. 17. The above provision makes it clear that the summoning of witnesses can be done by the police officer only during the process of investigation and investigation, as defined under Section 2(1) of BNSS, commences only after registration of an FIR. 17. In Ashok Kumar Todi vs. Kishwar Jahan, (2011) 3 SCC 758 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "48. Under the scheme of the Code, investigation commences with lodgement of information relating to the commission of an offence. .. The officer-in-charge has no escape from registering it if the offence mentioned therein is a cognizable offence." 18. In H. N. Rishbud vs. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 , the court explained the steps of investigation as including: "....1) proceeding to the spot, (2) ascertainment of facts, (3) discovery and arrest of suspected offender, (4) collection of evidence by examining persons and reducing their statements to writing, and (5) formation of opinion and filing of chargesheet." 19. Thus, it is clear that the examination of persons and recoding of their statements by the police officers is a part of investigation under the code. The process of investigation begins only after the registration of the FIR and the purpose is to collect evidence that are admissible in court, bring out the undisclosed facts and build a case which results in submission of chargesheet. 24. Accordingly, this cOurt holds as under: (i) Summons/notice cannot be issued during preliminary enquiry. (ii) The scope of preliminary enquiry is confined to perusal of the complaint and supporting materials furnished by the complainants. (iii) If a cognizable offence is disclosed, the police shall register an FIR forthwith and proceed with investigation. (iv) Any enquiry under Section 173(3) of BNSS must be completed within 14 days, after approval from a DSP and the result communicated to the complainant. 14. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been amply made clear and held that a Summons under Section 179 of the BNSS cannot be issued without registration of an FIR. In the present case, admittedly, no FIR has been registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned summons/notice under Section 179 of the BNSS has been issued in the absence of any lawful investigation. The action of the police is, therefore, without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory mandate. Such exercise of power results in unwarranted harassment of a citizen. 15. In the present case, admittedly, no FIR has been registered against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned summons/notice under Section 179 of the BNSS has been issued in the absence of any lawful investigation. The action of the police is, therefore, without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory mandate. Such exercise of power results in unwarranted harassment of a citizen. 15. This Court also takes note of the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that, despite repeated judicial pronouncements, such summons/notices are being issued routinely by the police without registration of an FIR. 16. Upon hearing the parties, and in view of the settled legal position and the facts of the case, the impugned summons dated 11.03.2026 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the impugned summons dated 11.03.2026 issued under Section 179 of the BNSS by the Enquiry Officer, Seijosa, is hereby quashed and set aside. 17. Considering that, despite repeated judicial pronouncements, such summons/notices are being routinely issued by the police without registration of an FIR, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions: i. The Director General of Police, State of Arunachal Pradesh, is directed to issue appropriate circulars/instructions to all police stations ensuring compliance with the legal mandate. ii. The investigating officers shall be sensitized that issuance of such summons/notice without registration of an FIR isillegal and impermissible. iii. It shall be ensured that appropriate disciplinary action is taken in cases of repeated violations. iv. A copy of this order shall be circulated to all Superintendents of Police in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for strict compliance. 18. The interim protection granted earlier shall stand confirmed. 19. With the above observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of.