Delhi High Court
W.P.(CRL)/2610/2026 of NADEEM Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 25 August 2026
2610/2026 Page 1 of 2 pages $~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 25.08.2026 + W.P.(CRL) 2610/2026, CRL.M.A. 26494/2026 & CRL.M.A. 26493/2026 NADEEM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nizam Pasha, Mr. Mushtaq Salim, Mr. Sidharth Kaushik, Ms. Awstika Das, Mr. Arif Ali,
W.P.(CRL) 2610/2026
Page 1 of 2 pages
$~78
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 25.08.2026
+
W.P.(CRL) 2610/2026, CRL.M.A. 26494/2026 & CRL.M.A.
26493/2026
NADEEM
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Nizam Pasha, Mr. Mushtaq
Salim, Mr. Sidharth Kaushik, Ms.
Awstika Das, Mr. Arif Ali, Ms. Charu
Sharma, Mr. Abubakar Shamsi and
Mr. Kamran Haider, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr.
Bhupendra
Singh
and
Mr.
Premsagar Pal, Assistant AG for
Punjab.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. It is 04:30 pm. This matter is received by way of second supplementary list after mentioning was allowed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
2. The petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 18.08.2026 issued by the investigating officer of Case No. 197/2026 registered at PS City Hoshiarpur, Punjab. GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec4 5569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d155 70996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e2 6fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.08.25 17:10:34 +05'30' Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Date:25.08.2026 17:17:01 Signature Not Verified
W.P.(CRL) 2610/2026
Page 2 of 2 pages
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned notice issued under Section 179 BNSS is contrary to law. It is submitted that under Section 179(1) BNSS, the investigating officer can require attendance of only that person who is within the limits of jurisdiction of the concerned police station or the adjoining police station. In the present case, since the impugned notice was issued by the investigating officer of district Hoshiarpur, Punjab, to the petitioner in Delhi, the notice is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner has referred to certain judicial pronouncements also, which are not being elaborated here further because the other side fairly concedes.
4. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Punjab Police accepts notice and concedes to the petition. It is submitted by him that the petition may be allowed, so that the IO may take further appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned notice is quashed.
6. Accompanying applications also stand disposed of.
GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) AUGUST 25, 2026/dr GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4af ec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacc a, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d 15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965f f801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.08.25 17:10:22 +05'30' Digitally Signed By:DIKSHA RAWAT Signing Date:25.08.2026 17:17:01 Signature Not Verified