The High Court · 2025

1. State of Telangana,, Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. B. Aswanth Bhargav Yadav,, S/o Late Raghavrao, Age.35 years, Occ.Farmer R/o VM Banjara, Penuball, Khammam - 507302 Khammam Commissionerate, Khammam. ...RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS Petitron under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash the notrces dated 11 August 2025 issued under Section 35(3) of the BNSS by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Khammam, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 and all consequent proceedings arising from it, and pass such other order or orders. LA. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of investigation and all further proceedings in relation to Case No. 28 of 2025 dated 08 July 2025 registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station, Khammam pending disposal of the above criminal petition and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P DHEERAJ MURTHY, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTTCE TTRUMALA Dt: /l EADA CRIMI NAL PETITION No.122O7of2O z, ORDER This Criminal petition is filed by the petitior er_accused seeking to quash the notice dated 1 1.OB.2O2S is;ued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksta Sanhita, 2023 (for short ,BNSS,) by the Cyber Crime pct :e Station, Khammam.

2. Heard Sri p.Dheeraj Murthy, learned cour sel for the Veeramall: learned petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Additional public prosecutor for the respondent No.1 _State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sulr nitted that the police have sent the notice under Section 35 (:) of BNSS to the petitioner through WhatsApp, which is not perr rissible in the eye of law and that the Apex Court has laid jown the principle in respect of issuance of notices under Se: ion 35(3) .BNSS in Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central B rreau of lnvestigation and anotherr and further the BNSS loes not permit service of notice under Section 35(3) through WhatsApp or any other electronic mode He further s tbmitted t 2025 tNSc aog 2 EM.J Crl.P. No.12207 otiD2s that after sending the impugned notice through WhatsApp, the police are regularly harassing the petitioner with threat of arrest and therefore, prayed to quash the notice and also the proceedings against the petitioner in the crime.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Maharashtra and that the police have sent notice through WhatsApp. He further submitted that admittedly, it is not a proper form of service, but however, just for the reason of improper service of notice through WhatsApp, the proceedings cannot be quashed and that the process can be regularized by directing the notice to be served in a proper manner.

5. Perused the record

6. The case of the de facto complainant is that the de facto complainant has invested an amount of Rs.2,60'00'0001 between 01.03.2022 and 09 05.2023 at the instance of one Ir/lr. Janapala Tagoor with the expectation of good returns by playing live streaming interconnecting services and it is alleged that the aforementioned money was transferred to the bank account of the persons, who are connected with the I 3 ETD,J Crl.P. 'l .12207 of2025 Streamkar App and to the said firm and also to the ac:ount of said Janapala Tagoor. The petitioner herein is the l oprietor of Streamerzone, having its registered office at Kalyan, Maharashtra. Thus, serious allegations involvirr, I huge amounts through online App are made against the 1r, rtitioner. Though the petitioner seeks to quash the notice issue d under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the learned counsel for the p:titioner l relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Satendrr Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of lnvestigation and anotlr rr (cited supra), wherein it was held that: "Service of notice under Section 35 of BNSS 20 2 i needs to be carried out in a manner that protects ttr ; substantive right, as non-compliance with the notr: : can have a drastic effect on the liberty of r I individual. The Legislature, in its wisdom, h r ; specifically excluded the service of a notrce unc€- Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 lrom the abmrt (' procedures permissible through electror rr : communication, that have been delineated unc€- Section 530 of the BNSS, 2023 ....The restnctro.r i imposed by the Legislature on the use of electrorrr ; communication, to only certain procedures. preclud: ; the use of electronic communrcatron for any otl^ € proc,edure, for which it has not been spectfrca l, permitted by the BNSS, 2023 " ' 4 ETDIJ Crl,P, 110.12207 on025

7. The Apex Cou( has further explained that a notice under Section 35 of BNSS, 2023 does not fall within the same category as a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023 for the simple reason that a summons under Section 71 of the BNSS, 2023 has no immediate bearing on the liberty of an individual in case of its non-compliance' However' a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS' 2023 could have a immediate bearing on the liberty of the individual in case of its non- compliance as laid down under Section 35(6) of the BNSS'

8. Thus, admittedly' the notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS should not have been served through WhatsApp' which is an improper mode of service Hence' the said notice is set aside. However, since the offence alleged involves serious allegations involving transfer of huge amounts, it is not proper to quash the proceedings on the whole' Therefore' it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to appear before the police concerned on or before 20.11'2025 and receive notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS and the police concerned arelalso directed to invoke the procedure under Section 35(3) of BNSS and to follow the guidelines formulated by the ! 7 I- 5 EfD,J Ctl-t'. 1o.12207 otZO2S Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State r f Bihar2 scrupulously and the petitioner is also directed to r:, r_operate with the lnvestigating Officer and to furnish the requisite information and documents as and when required by I im.

9. The Criminal petition is disposed of with le above directions. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, sl all stand closed I I To, SD/- I] PONNA KRISHNA IIi''ANT REGISTRAR t 1' //TRUE COPY// S ECTION OFFICER

1. The Station House Officer, Police Station, VM Banlara, Cy ler Crtme Police Station, Khammam

2. Two CCs to the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, High Court at l-l' derabad (OUT) 3. One CC to SRI . P DHEERAJ MURTHY Advocate [OPt, )] 4 Two CD Copies 1'PK,/PSL (+ ' lzor+1 a scc zzr HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 -I I '(- B 6 tij uin t D ORDER CRLP.No.12207 of 2025 GRIMINAL PETITION IS DISPOS E:D OF f$- \? \\