J Angelin Saphier Vs the State of Karnataka

J ANGELIN SAPHIER WIFE OF VINOD ROGER, D/O JOE MARIA .D, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.12, MUNIREDDY STREET, OIL MILL ROAD, ARVIND NAGAR, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE -560084

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SUHAAS.U., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVANANDA M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE -560001.

¶16

SMT. KAZHAKE NAILIN, D/O C.R.SUKUMARAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.BG02, SYN,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:42771 CRL.P No. 13979 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

VANDEEP ORCHIDS, 3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS, VIGNANA NAGAR, BENGALURU -560037.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI.K., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H))

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE POLICE NOTICE DTD 22.09.2023 U/S 35(3) OF BNSS ACT, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH THE CR.NO.204/2024, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 466,419,420,465,468,471 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE X ACJM, AT BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is seeking to quash/set aside the police notice dated 22.09.2025 issued under Section 35(3) of BNSS, 2023.

¶28

Section 35 (3) of the BNSS 2023 contemplates

¶29

that a police officer, in all cases where the arrest of a

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42771 CRL.P No. 13979 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

person is not required, shall 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.

¶33

The contention of the learned counsel is that

¶34

the petitioner is not named in the FIR and therefore issuance of such notice, without any material or basis is arbitrary and amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶35

The police have registered a case in Crime No. 204 of 2024 at Indiranagar Police Station, Bangalore City, on a complaint lodged by one Smt. Kazhake Nailin against four named accused, for the offence punishable under Section 466, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶36

In brief, it is alleged that certain property belonging to complainant's father has been illegally sold by the accused persons on 23.08.2023 by impersonation etc.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42771 CRL.P No. 13979 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The petitioner is not named as an accused in

¶40

the FIR. However, during investigation, the police have issued the notice dated 22.09.2025 under Section 35(3) to the petitioner calling upon him to participate in the inquiry. The said notice is issued for the purpose of investigation and it cannot be said that issuance of the notice is arbitrary or abuse of process of law. The police have to conduct a fair investigation into the allegations made and file an appropriate report. There is no merit in the

¶41

petition. Petition is dismissed .

¶42

I.A.No.1/2025 is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶44

KLY CT: JL

J Angelin Saphier v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J Angelin Saphier v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Madan Mohan Vs Sri Rudresh N

Abhilash Rao @ Abhilash Rao Magavanna Vs the State of Karnataka by

Anitha G D, Vs Puttalingaiah K

Sri Rahul M Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Chandrahasa Keshava Shetty, Vs the State of Karnataka

Rinku Devi @ Rinku Vs Staet by Harihara Town Police