The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has quashed a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Srivilliputhur Sub Division, observing that the police are not empowered to summon or question a person in the absence of a registered case.
Justice Sunder Mohan, while allowing a Criminal Original Petition filed by Vimal Chinnappan, held that Section 35(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) specifies circumstances for arrest without a warrant but does not authorize the police to summon an individual without a registered crime.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Vimal Chinnappan, approached the High Court seeking to quash a notice issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (1st respondent) dated October 26, 2025. The notice was issued under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The impugned notice stated that during the investigation of Crime No. 527 of 2023, registered under Sections 294(b), 323, and 506(i) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the police came across an article published by the petitioner in a journal. The article allegedly contained defamatory statements against the police. Consequently, the notice forwarded certain questions to the petitioner seeking an explanation.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. R. Karunanidhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the impugned notice failed to disclose the case in which the petitioner was being summoned. He argued that the investigation in Crime No. 527 of 2023 had already been completed, and a final report had been filed.
The counsel contended that the only allegation against the petitioner was making defamatory statements against the police. He argued that:
- The proper remedy for defamation against the police is to file a private complaint.
- Even if a cognizable offence was made out, the respondents should have first registered a case before summoning the petitioner.
Mr. K. Sanjai Gandhi, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, fairly submitted that the investigation in Crime No. 527 of 2023 had indeed been concluded. He informed the court that the final report had been taken cognizance of in Spl.S.C.No. 28 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court of SC/ST Act Cases, Virudhunagar. He further admitted that no separate case had been registered against the petitioner for the alleged defamatory statements.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court noted that the notice sought responses to approximately twelve questions primarily relating to the publication of the article containing defamatory allegations against the police.
Justice Sunder Mohan observed that the notice was admittedly not issued in connection with Crime No. 527 of 2023, as that investigation had concluded. The Court stated, “If the petitioner was required for enquiry in any other case, the respondents ought to have referred to the crime number of such case. Admittedly, no other case has been registered against the petitioner.”
Analyzing the legal provisions, the Court made a significant observation regarding the scope of police powers under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court held:
“That apart, Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS only specifies the circumstances under which a Police Officer may arrest a person without a warrant and does not empower the respondents to summon or question the petitioner in the absence of any case registered against him.”
Decision
In view of the findings that no case was registered against the petitioner and the police lacked the power to summon him under the stated circumstances, the High Court quashed the impugned notice dated October 26, 2025.
However, the Court clarified that “if any case is registered against the petitioner and his presence is required for enquiry in such case, this order shall not stand in the way of the respondents proceeding in accordance with law.”
The Criminal Original Petition was allowed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Vimal Chinnappan Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.
- Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD).No.19623 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Sunder Mohan
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Karunanidhi
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. Sanjai Gandhi, Government Advocate
