Writ petition disposed of in terms of the interim order favouring Ajeeba Mol.T.N (Petitioner)
In Short
Ajeeba Mol received notices from the cyber crime police in connection with an ongoing investigation, but worried about being forced to travel far. The Kerala High Court protected her rights by noting that under the law, women do not need to be called to the police station for questioning. The court ensured she could be questioned properly without harassment, leading to a smooth resolution where her main grievances were met.
The Parties
Party A: Ajeeba Mol.T.N
Party B: Union Of India, State Of Kerala, Cyber Crime Police Station, Sub Inspector Cyber Crime Unit (IFSO) Special Cell Delhi Police, and Director General Of Police State Police Headquarters
Advocates & Judges
For Party A: Learned Advocate Mr. R. Rohith, Learned Advocate Ms. Harishma P. Thampi
For Party B: Learned Advocate Mr. K.K. Sethukumar
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Harisankar V. Menon
What the Case Was About
The petitioner, a 26-year-old woman from Kerala, received official notices and letters from the cyber crime police unit in Delhi regarding an FIR registered under the Information Technology Act. Because the notices did not make it clear whether she was being treated as an accused person or merely a witness, she grew anxious about police interference and being summoned all the way to a distant police station. She approached the High Court to challenge this, pointing out that criminal procedure rules protect women from being forced to visit a police station for questioning.
Judgment Date
28 October 2026
The Outcome
The court disposed of the writ petition based on the earlier interim order after noting that the core grievances of the petitioner had been successfully addressed.
What the Court Looked At
- The court observed that the notices sent by the cyber crime police did not clearly state whether the petitioner was an accused person or a witness.
- The court considered the petitioner's argument that under the legal provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), women cannot be required to visit a police station for questioning.
- The court noted that investigating officers should ideally travel to the nearest police station where a woman resides, or use alternative methods like video conferencing, to record her statement.
- The court protected the petitioner by ordering that the fourth respondent must not harass her while checking whether she was needed as a witness or an accused.
"From Exts.P1 and P3 notices, it is not discernible whether the petitioner is an accused or a witness. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the Proviso to Section 179 (i) of the BNSS."
What This Means For You
Receiving a sudden notice from a cyber crime police station located in another city can trigger instant panic, especially when it is unclear why they are contacting you. In this case, the petitioner successfully protected her peace of mind by asserting her legal right not to be dragged to a distant police station as a woman. If you ever find yourself facing unexpected police notices or investigation calls regarding online matters, do not panic or ignore them, but also know that the law provides specific safeguards regarding where and how your statement can be recorded. Understanding your rights early can prevent unnecessary travel, harassment, and stress. Setback Solutions is here to help you understand your options in plain language and coordinate your next steps, without any legal advice or promised outcomes.
You Still Have Options
If you are facing a sudden police notice, a confusing cyber crime FIR, or feeling overwhelmed by legal procedures, it is definitely not the end of the road. You can always explore helpful avenues like getting a second opinion, evaluating your communication strategy, or seeking non-judicial guidance to handle the situation calmly. Reach out to Setback Solutions for clear, plain-language help and coordination to understand your options and take the next step with confidence. Please remember that Setback Solutions is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, and never guarantees any specific legal result.