Police Officers Shall Not Entertain Or Conduct Enquiries In Civil Disputes: Madras High Court Issues Directions

The Madras High Court has issued certain directions to the police authorities for uniform implementation throughout the State.

The Madurai Bench was hearing a batch of Petitions filed by some individuals, seeking a direction to the police not to harass them under the guise of enquiry on the basis of private complaints that are civil in nature, such as money disputes, property transactions, and contractual disagreements.

A Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi issued the following directions –

(i) Police officers shall not entertain or conduct enquiries in disputes which are civil in nature, such as those involving money, property, or contracts.

(ii) The practice of “current paper enquiry” has no statutory recognition and shall be discontinued forthwith.

(iii) Summons or notices under Sections 94 or 179 BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) shall be issued only after registration of an FIR, and never during preliminary or petition enquiry.

(iv) If a complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, the police shall register an FIR immediately and proceed to investigate in accordance with Section 173 BNSS.

(v) In all other cases, complainants shall be advised to approach the appropriate Civil Court or forum.

(vi) The Director General of Police, Chennai, shall circulate this Order and the circulars dated 04.12.2008, 09.01.2024, and 02.07.2025 to all units and ensure compliance through periodic monitoring.

(vii) Violation of these directions by any police officer shall invite departmental action under the relevant service rules.

The Petitioner A. Abdul Kabur appeared in person, while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) T. Senthilkumar appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

In the lead case, the Petitioners were the members of the same family who sought protection against alleged harassment under the guise of enquiry based on a complaint lodged by the Respondent person. The first Petitioner ran a jewellery shop and there were business dealings between him and the Respondent, out of which certain disputes arose. Allegedly, when the Petitioner and his uncle were called to Tirunelveli Town Katchi Mandapam by the Respondent, his associates abused and assaulted them and forcibly took 162.50 grams of gold.

Hence, a complaint was registered under the BNSS. According to the Petitioners, because of the previous animosity, the Respondents fabricated a complaint alleging cheating of Rs. 3 crores which is purely a money dispute. It was alleged that without issuing any formal summons, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) called the Petitioners for enquiry and harassed them.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the above facts, held, “The Court is constrained to note that “current paper enquiries” have become a convenient instrument of harassment. Such informal proceedings have no recognition under law, and this Court holds that the invocation of Sections 94 and 179 of the BNSS, 2023 before registration of an FIR is patently illegal. An individual cannot be compelled to appear before the police unless a cognizable offence has been disclosed and recorded in accordance with Section 173 of the BNSS.”

The Court remarked that the police cannot and should not intervene in purely civil disputes, unless the complaint contains prima facie allegations disclosing criminal elements such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, or criminal intimidation, backed by specific factual details.

“No such ingredients are found in the present matters. Despite this, the police have proceeded to conduct what is described as a ‘current paper enquiry’.”, it added.

The Court noted that the enquiries are neither reflected in the General Diary (GD) nor in any prescribed register, and there is no docketing, case number, or identifiable paper trail and as a result, the entire exercise remains invisible to judicial or administrative scrutiny.

“Such an informal mechanism, when allowed to operate without regulation, opens the door to arbitrary exercise of discretion, wherein the police may choose to act or not act on a complaint at their own volition, and without any accountability”, it said.

The Court was of the view that action taken without generating a corresponding record, whether by way of a CSR number, petition register entry, or any other formally maintained docket, cannot be countenanced under law.

“Such unrecorded steps create a shadow administrative system, where matters may be selectively acted upon or indefinitely kept pending, without any audit trail. This Court is of the view that permitting such undocumented enquiries, particularly in cases that are later closed as civil in nature, opens the door to arbitrary conduct, including the possibility of coercion, inaction, or collusive compromise at the police station level, all without judicial or administrative scrutiny”, it observed.

The Court emphasised that the police officers have no jurisdiction to summon parties or mediate civil disputes under the pretext of enquiry.

“In all these cases, the nature of complaints are purely civil in nature. Civil Courts are established to address this kind of disputes. However, it appears that the private individuals found an easy method to collect money, which is due to them, by lodging a complaint before the police”, it further remarked.

The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process.

“This Court is repeatedly witnessing several applications being filed that the police officers are harassing the individuals in civil matters. It appears that the police have forgotten their responsibilities and duties and are indulging in these type of Kattapanchayats. It is regrettable to note that these applications are being entertained and the Police, in uniform, are working as asset recovery agents for collecting money in financial transactions”, it also noted.

Conclusion

The Court, therefore, restrained the police from summoning or harassing the Petitioners or their family members under the guise of “enquiry” in civil disputes.

“Before parting, this Court reiterates that law and order is not served by extending police jurisdiction into civil fields. The separation between civil and criminal remedies is a constitutional safeguard against misuse of State power. Despite repeated judicial pronouncements and departmental instructions, these practices persist, reflecting systemic disregard of established boundaries”, it said.

Moreover, the Court observed that the recurring pattern of the police acting as de facto recovery agents at the behest of private individuals reflects a systemic malaise and it strikes at the core of the rule of law and requires firm judicial correction.

“The police are entrusted with the solemn duty of enforcing the criminal law, not mediating private quarrels or acting as recovery agents. This Court expects the higher police authorities to ensure that such unauthorised practices are eradicated once and for all. Any recurrence will invite severe judicial scrutiny”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court directed the Registry to forward a copy of the Order to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, for circulation to all District Superintendents and Commissioners of Police for strict compliance.

Cause Title- Abdul Kadar & Ors. v. The Commissioner of Police (Case Number: Crl.OP(MD)No.9478 of 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioners: A. Abdul Kabur

Respondents: APP T. Senthilkumar, Advocates G. Karuppasamy Pandian, and C. Susi Kumar.

Click here to read/download the Order