Calcutta High Court holds that writ petition challenging notice to appear under Section 94/179 of the BNSS, when petitioner is not named as accused and proper reasons are given, is not maintainable. Reaffirms that such investigative steps cannot be interfered with in the absence of legal infirmity—serves as binding precedent for subordinate judiciary in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/24403/2025 of KAMAL HOSSAIN Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0492392025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition can be entertained to challenge a notice under Section 94/179 BNSS directing a non-accused petitioner to appear in investigation. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that where a petitioner, not named as an accused in the FIR, is issued a notice under Section 94/179 BNSS by the investigating officer for being acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, and there are sufficient reasons recorded in the State’s report, such notice does not warrant interference via writ petition. The mere issuance of summons to aid investigation, absent legal infirmity or mala fides, does not disclose a cause for judicial intervention. The writ petition was therefore found meritless and dismissed. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The notice was found justified as the petitioner was not an accused, but only acquainted with facts, and State report disclosed reasons. No broader legal infirmity shown. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The private respondent lodged an FIR alleging defamatory posts uploaded on a YouTube account. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking relief against registration of the FIR and the notice under Section 94/179 BNSS directing his appearance before the investigating officer. The petitioner was not named as accused in the FIR, but directed to appear as being acquainted with the case. The State filed a report supporting the necessity of the notice. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court clarified that being summoned under Section 94/179 BNSS as a person acquainted with the facts, without being an accused, is insufficient ground for writ interference.
- Writ petitions against such investigation notices should demonstrate clear legal infirmity or malafide, failing which they are liable to be dismissed.
- The precedent restricts recourse to writ jurisdiction in matters regarding investigative summons issued to non-accused persons.
- Lawyers should advise clients that mere discomfort or apprehension on receipt of such notice is not a tenable basis for writ relief.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the FIR concerned alleged defamatory posts uploaded to a YouTube account, and a notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 94/179 BNSS directing him to appear before the investigating officer.
- The petitioner was not named as an accused in the FIR; he was summoned as a person acquainted with relevant facts.
- The State’s report demonstrated the reasons for calling the petitioner to the police station during investigation.
- The Court found no grievance in the writ petition against the mere registration of the FIR, nor any legal infirmity in the notice.
- Concluded that the writ petition was devoid of merit, as investigative steps were lawful and not arbitrary.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought relief against the registration of FIR and appearance notice under Section 94/179 BNSS.
State:
- Justified notice under Section 94/179 BNSS, indicating petitioner needed to assist investigation as he was acquainted with the facts.
- Produced a report outlining reasons for notice.
Private Respondent:
- None appeared despite service.
Factual Background
The private respondent filed an FIR at Joypur Police Station, alleging that certain defamatory posts were uploaded to a YouTube account. The petitioner, not named as an accused, was directed by the investigating officer through a notice under Section 94/179 of the BNSS to appear for providing information as someone acquainted with the facts of the case. The petitioner challenged both the registration of the FIR and the notice via writ petition. The State supported the necessity of the notice through its report; the private respondent did not appear.
Statutory Analysis
The Court analyzed Section 94/179 of the BNSS, which empowers the investigating officer to summon any person acquainted with the circumstances of the case to appear and provide information during investigation. The provision applies to non-accused individuals, and such summons are a lawful part of police investigation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on the limited scope of writ interference with criminal investigations reaffirmed.