S.179(1) BNSS | Police Cannot Compel Presence Of ‘Any Person’ Acquainted With Case As Matter Of Right | AP High Court Directs Examination At Residence Or Neutral Venue
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Single Bench of Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa directed that the petitioner, a 65-year-old resident of Noida, cannot be compelled to attend investigation proceedings in Vijayawada and must instead be examined at his residence or a neutral location in Noida, with counsel present and proceedings recorded electronically. The Court observed that the power of a police officer under Section 179(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to secure attendance of “any person” is territorially restricted to those within his police station or adjoining stations and cannot extend beyond, nor be exercised “as a matter of right".
The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by V.D. Moorthy, a 65-year-old resident of Noida, Uttar Pradesh, who is the Director of Sigma Supply Chain Solutions Private Limited. The matter arose in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024 registered by the C.I.D. Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Sections 318, 316(5) read with Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner was not named as an accused in the crime but was issued notices for examination during investigation.
On 15 August 2025, the Investigating Officer served a notice under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, directing the petitioner to appear on 18 August 2025 and produce relevant documents. A second notice dated 19 August 2025 required his presence before the Special Investigation Team (SIT) office at Vijayawada on 21 August 2025. The petitioner challenged these notices, asserting that the respondents were abusing the provisions of BNSS by requiring him to travel from Noida to Vijayawada, instead of examining him at his residence or in a neutral place at Noida, in the presence of counsel and under video-audio coverage.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had already complied by attending twice before the Investigating Officer at Mangalagiri. It was argued that, being over 65 years of age and suffering from cervical radiculopathy, the petitioner was medically advised not to travel or sit for long durations. Counsel contended that Section 179 of BNSS did not empower the Investigating Officer to compel attendance of a person residing outside his jurisdiction and urged that any statement could instead be recorded electronically under Section 180 of BNSS.
In response, counsel for the respondents, representing the CID, argued that the petitioner’s age was 64 years as per medical records and that Section 179(1) of BNSS permitted a police officer to issue written orders to secure the attendance of persons beyond jurisdiction, subject to their willingness. It was further submitted that, in case of unwillingness, the officer could proceed with alternative methods to record statements.
The dispute thus centered on the scope of Section 179(1) of BNSS, particularly whether the Investigating Officer had jurisdiction to summon a person residing outside the limits of his own or adjoining police stations, and whether the petitioner could lawfully be required to appear in Vijayawada despite his residence in Noida and claimed health condition
Justice Pratapa recorded that the petitioner had already attended twice before the investigating officer, a fact not disputed by the agency. The Court noted that the grievance was the repeated issuance of notices despite compliance, and the petitioner’s inability to travel due to age and medical condition.
The Court observed: “The word ‘any person’ used in Section 179(1) of BNSS denotes that the said person may be an informant, complainant, victim, witness or accused.”
The Court stated: “The difference between Section 160 Cr.P.C and Section 179 BNSS would be on couple of points. Firstly, under the first proviso to Section 160(1) Cr.P.C, a male person, who is aged above 65 years, does not require to attend before the Investigating Agency, which is situated other than the place in which such person resides, and the same is reduced under the first proviso to Section 179(1) to above 60 years. Secondly, the second proviso is introduced in Section 179(1) of BNSS, which was not there in Section 160(1) Cr.P.C.”
The Court further observed: “The proviso… makes it clear that the Police Officer can issue an order in writing to them by virtue of the power under Section 179(1) of BNSS, but he cannot secure their presence before him as a matter of right.”
It was recorded that such persons, including those above 60 years or suffering from acute illness, were not legally obligated to attend, and their statements should be recorded at their residence. The second proviso gave liberty to such persons to attend the police station voluntarily if they so wished.
The Court found the argument regarding the petitioner’s age to be without merit: “The argument that the age of the Petitioner is 64 years as per the medical record, has no merit in the light of the copy of the Aadhar card of the Petitioner, which shows the date of birth of the individual as 09.05.1960, and hence, he is aged above 65 years.”
The Court concluded: “In the present set of facts, irrespective of the age, gender, acute ill-health of the Petitioner, the fact remains that, the Police Officer making an investigation cannot issue such notice under Section 179(1) of BNSS to the Petitioner, who is residing at Noida in the State of Uttar Pradesh.”
It further held: “In the present case, the notice issued under Section 179 of BNSS is without jurisdiction. The reason being, the governing provision i.e., Section 179(1) of BNSS itself in categorical terms excludes the jurisdiction of the Police Officer to issue such an order in writing.”
Justice Pratapa directed: “The Police Officer making investigation relating to Crime No.21 of 2024 on the file of CID Police Station, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, is at liberty to take necessary steps to examine the Petitioner at his place and collect relevant documents, in the presence of his Advocate, who can sit 10 to 15 feet away from the Petitioner and to record such statement also by electronic means by giving prior information to the Petitioner according to governing rules and law.”
“There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sai Rohit, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Case Title: V D Moorthy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: APHC010443902025
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 22577 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa
