Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040003512026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Crl.Petn./57/2026 Tatung Takar Ame Son of Tatung Tarum, resident of Village Jullang, PO RK Mission, PS Chimpu, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented through the PP of AP 2:The Superintendent of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Capital Complex Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Officer in Charge Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Police Station Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Investigating Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Itanagar Police Station Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Bori Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. L. Hage, Addl. P P of AP, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 16.03.2026 Heard Mr. U. Bori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondents. 2. By filing this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 10.03.2026 issued by the investigating Officer (IO) of the case under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023, whereby the petitioner has been directed to appear before the IO of the case on dated 11.03.2026 in connection with a complaint regarding alleged illegal construction and encroachment over the land of the informant. 3. Mr. Bori, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that based on a written complaint lodged by one Smti. Bengia Yakar before Itanagar Police Station alleging illegal construction of a wall/structure by encroaching upon her land and damaging the retaining wall constructed by her, the police started an enquiry into the matter and issued the impugned notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS directing the petitioner to appear before the Police Station on 11.03.2026 without registration of an FIR. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the IO could not have issued the impugned notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS without prior registration of an FIR. 5. In support of his submission, the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. Page No.# 3/4 6. This Court has considered the contention and the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On perusal, it appears that in Lalita Kumari (supra), the Constitutional Bench held that registration of FIR is mandatory where the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence, however, it also recognized that in appropriate cases the police may conduct a preliminary enquiry to ascertain whether the cognizable offence is made out before registration of FIR or not. 7. Now coming to Section 35(3) of BNSS which reads as under: ” (3) The police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1), issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.” 8. A bare perusal of Section 35(3) of the BNSS indicates that where the arrest of a person is not required under sub-section (1), the police officer may issue a notice directing such person, against whom a reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been received, to appear before him for the purpose of enquiry. 9. In the present case, the impugned notice merely calls upon the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer in connection with a complaint recorded in the General Diary Itanagar P. S. GDE No.18 dated 09.03.2026. Such notice is only for the purpose of enquiry and does not amount to any coercive action. 10. Interference with such notice at this preliminary stage in exercise of Page No.# 4/4 inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of BNSS is not warranted. 11. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of at the motion stage with the observation that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on the next date fixed and cooperate with the enquiry. It is further observed that the Investigating Officer shall proceed with the enquiry/investigation of the case strictly in accordance with law. 12. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant