BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court said the notice issued by Vadgaon Police Station of Maharashtra to representatives of partnership firms involved in the manufacture of tobacco products in Bengaluru, to appear for a probe, is unsustainable in law. It said they shall not issue notices under Section 179 of BNSS requiring petitioners to attend at Vadgaon while they are outside the limits of that police station and any adjoining police stations.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while partly allowing petitions filed by Shiva Enterprises and others, seeking direction to the Vadgaon police not to interfere with their lawful business under the garb of investigation, based on the case registered by them against the third parties in a crime after intercepting the truck on Bengaluru-Pune Highway in August 2025 on the suspicion of transporting prohibited tobacco products.
The petitioners contend that notwithstanding the fact that they were not named in the FIR dated August 21, 2025, five to six police personnel from Vadgaon Police Station visited the premises of a petitioner at Tumakuru to conduct an inquiry. They also issued a notice to the partners, requiring them to appear before them. However, their statements were recorded at Tumakuru and not at Vadgaon, the petitioners argued.
The court declared that the inter-state investigative operation undertaken at the petitioners’ premises at Tumakuru, including inspection of business records, taking of ledger books or copies, and recording of their statements is illegal, therefore they have to return the ledger books and copies taken from the petitioners.
In future, before undertaking any further investigative operation in Karnataka, Vadgaon police shall give prior written intimation to the officer in charge of the jurisdictional Karnataka police station, the court said.
However, the court declined the general prayer to restrain Vadgaon police from contacting the petitioners or interfering with their lawful business, except to the extent of specific directions issued. It also declined the petitioners’ prayer to quash the FIR or investigation as a whole, as the petitioners have not established a basis for restraining all further contact with them or quashing the crime.
