Amit Tyagi vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Amit Tyagi, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash two "Notice to Join Enquiry" dated January 12, 2026, and January 28, 2026, issued by the respondent, the State of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner argued that the notices were arbitrary and non-speaking, failing to disclose the statutory provision or authority under which they were issued, and it was unclear if he was being summoned as a witness or an accused. The respondent contended that no FIR had been registered yet, and the notices were based on a written complaint regarding the use of a forged MSME letterhead, cheating, and forgery. The notices were issued solely for the purpose of enquiry and clarification.
Held
The Court held that the "Notice to Join Enquiry" dated January 12, 2026, and January 28, 2026, were self-explanatory. The Court noted that no FIR had been registered as of yet, and the notices were issued solely to require the petitioner to join an enquiry where certain details were to be sought from him. The Court found that the notices clearly reflected that they were based on a written complaint and the petitioner was called for the purpose of enquiry and clarification. Consequently, the Court concluded that the present petition was premature and lacked merit for the issuance of notice. The Court dismissed the petition in limine.
Key Issues
1. Whether the "Notice to Join Enquiry" dated January 12, 2026, and January 28, 2026, issued by the respondent to the petitioner are arbitrary and non-speaking, failing to disclose the statutory provision or authority under which they were issued, and whether it is unclear if the petitioner is being summoned as a witness or an accused? Petitioner's contention: The notices are arbitrary and non-speaking because they do not specify the statutory provision or authority under which they were issued, nor do they clarify whether the petitioner is to be treated as a witness or an accused. Respondent's contention: The notices are not required to mention specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as no FIR has been registered yet. The notices clearly indicate that the petitioner is called for an enquiry and clarification based on a written complaint regarding forgery and cheating.
Sections Cited
Section 528
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
By virtue of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the petitioner seeks quashing of the two notices titled “Notice to Join Enquiry” dated 12.01.2026 and 28.01.2026 issued by the respondent to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits the aforesaid two notices are prima facie arbitrary and non-speaking since they don’t disclose the statutory provision or authority under which they have been issued to the petitioner, as also that it is also unclear if the petitioner is called as a witness or an accused.
In reply thereof, learned ASC for the State submits that the prosecution is acting only on the basis of the written complaint filed regarding using of Forged Official Letterhead of MSME, cheating and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/02/2026 at 13:17:38
forgery, without registering an FIR as yet, there is no reason for mentioning the requisite provision(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in the said notices.
He further submits that a bare perusal of both the notices i.e., “Notice to Join Enquiry” and the content therein clearly reflect that the same are based on a written complaint and the petitioner has been called only for the purpose of enquiry and clarification therein.
The relevant extract of both the verbatim notices are as under: “Through this request letter you are hereby informed that a written complaint regarding using of Forged Official Letterhead of MSME, cheating and Forgery has been filed
For the purpose of enquiry in the said matter and clarification, you are hereby called to join the enquiry at AEKC/Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony, Delhi Police on 14.01.2026 at about 03:00 PM along with Copy of Pan Card and GST no in respect of your above mentioned company”
Prima facie, this Court finds that the aforesaid two notices issued are self-explanatory inasmuch as no FIR has been registered as of yet and the said notices have been issued only requiring the petitioner to join enquiry wherein certain details are required to be sought from him.
As such, in view of the aforesaid, the present petition is itself pre- mature, and there is hardly any merit therein for issuance of notice.
Accordingly, the present petition, alongwith the pending application, is dismissed in limine.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J FEBRUARY 17, 2026/bh This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/02/2026 at 13:17:38
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.