The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has held that service of summons by Whatsapp valid under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The bench of Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke has observed that the trial court had overlooked the amended statutory framework under the BNSS. Section 70(3) of the BNSS expressly provides that summons served through electronic communication under Sections 64 to 71 shall be considered duly served, provided a copy is attested and retained as proof. Section 530 of the BNSS permits trials, inquiries, and proceedings — including issuance and service of summons and warrants — to be conducted in electronic mode using audio-video electronic means.
The matter arose after the Special POCSO Court imposed costs on a police constable on the ground that summons to prosecution witnesses had been served through mobile phone communication, which the trial court held was not a legally permissible mode of service. The trial court observed that since summons were not served through “legal mode,” the case was delayed and consequently directed recovery of costs from the concerned constable.
Aggrieved by this order, the State approached the High Court, contending that the trial court had ignored the amended provisions of the BNSS, particularly Sections 70 and 530, which expressly recognize electronic modes of service and proceedings.
The Public Prosecutor submitted that the summons had initially been duly served on the witnesses, and the hearing date was communicated on November 3, 2025. Subsequent reissued summons were not handed over to the concerned constable for service. The trial court failed to consider the statutory recognition of electronic communication under Section 70 of the BNSS. The order was factually and legally unsustainable.
Reliance was also placed on the Bombay High Court’s earlier decision in Kross Television India Pvt. Ltd. v. Vikhyat Chitra Production & Ors. (2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1433), where the Court had emphasized that the primary purpose of service of summons is to bring notice to the concerned party, and the mode of service is secondary if knowledge is effectively communicated.
The High Court observed that electronic communication is now statutorily recognized and accepted. It emphasized that the object of service of summons is to notify the concerned person and ensure awareness of the proceedings. In the present case, witnesses had already been informed and bonded over, and communication through mobile phone regarding the date of hearing could not be treated as illegal.
The Court further held that the trial court’s order was factually incorrect, as the record demonstrated that the reissued summons had not even been handed over to the constable for service after November 3, 2025.
The High Court quashed the direction to recover costs from the concerned police constable. The criminal application filed by the State was accordingly allowed and disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Maharashtra Versus Satish
Citation: JURISHOUR-38-HC-2026(Bom)
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 222 OF 2026
Date: 12/02/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: D. V. Chauhan, Public Prosecutor
