The Madras High Court has clarified that police cannot use the pretext of investigation to harass individuals embroiled in civil disputes. In a decisive order, the Court emphasized that any inquiry must strictly comply with procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ensuring that lawful investigation does not morph into intimidation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners - Malliga, Gandhi, Rani, R. Dinesh, Gajalakshmi, Dhanalakshmi, Nethaji, and Vijayalakshmi - are parties to a civil dispute with respondent 4, M/s Nova Life Space Private Limited. The petitioners allege that the respondent police, under the guise of conducting a criminal investigation, have been subjecting them and their families to repeated, unwarranted visits, verbal threats, and coercive questioning, all stemming from an ongoing civil matter.
Key Facts
- The underlying dispute is purely civil in nature, involving contractual or property-related grievances with M/s Nova Life Space Private Limited
- No First Information Report (FIR) has been registered in connection with the matter as of the date of the petition
- The petitioners have not been formally summoned or notified of any specific allegation or offence under investigation
- The police have conducted unannounced visits to the petitioners’ residences and workplaces, causing public embarrassment and psychological distress
- The petitioners submitted representations to senior police officials, which remained unaddressed
Procedural History
- Date of filing: Criminal Original Petition filed on an unspecified date prior to 27.05.2026
- 27.05.2026: Hearing before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammed Shaffiq, Madras High Court
- 27.05.2026: Order passed disposing of the petition
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners
The petitioners contended that the police actions constitute abuse of power and violate their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. They argued that the police are misusing investigative powers to exert pressure in a civil dispute, which is outside the scope of criminal jurisdiction.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate, representing the police respondents, conceded that no FIR had been registered and acknowledged that the investigation was preliminary. The Advocate submitted that the police would issue formal summons only if the presence of the petitioners was necessary for the inquiry.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to the police to cease all forms of harassment, refrain from unannounced visits, and not to initiate any coercive action without due process under the BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the police may initiate coercive investigative steps against individuals in the absence of a registered FIR and without issuing a formal notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly when the underlying dispute is civil in nature.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and the principle that criminal investigation must not be weaponized in civil disputes. They cited judicial precedents holding that police cannot act as agents of civil enforcement and must maintain a strict separation between civil remedies and criminal procedure. They emphasized that harassment through repeated visits and intimidation violates the spirit of Section 35(3) BNSS, which mandates notice before compulsion.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate conceded that no formal investigation had commenced and affirmed that the police would not proceed without issuing a lawful notice under Section 35(3) BNSS. The Advocate assured the Court that the police would not resort to harassment and would strictly adhere to procedural norms.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the absence of an FIR and the civil nature of the underlying dispute rendered any coercive police action legally unsustainable. The Court emphasized that Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandates that any person required to assist in an investigation must be given a written notice specifying the time and place of appearance. The Court noted that this provision is designed to prevent arbitrary summoning and to ensure that individuals are not subjected to surprise or coercive demands.
"It is for the Investigating Agency to issue appropriate notice to the petitioners under Section 35(3) of BNSS for enquiry and on receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall appear for enquiry and co-operate in the investigation."
The Court further held that any deviation from this procedure - such as unannounced visits, verbal summons, or intimidation - constitutes harassment and is impermissible. The Court made it clear that if a cognizable offence is subsequently established, the police must register an FIR and proceed in accordance with law, but not before.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Madras High Court disposed of the petition with the direction that the police shall not harass the petitioners in any manner. The police are directed to issue formal notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before requiring the petitioners’ presence for any inquiry. No coercive action shall be taken without such notice. The Court further directed that if a cognizable offence is established, an FIR shall be registered and investigation shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Mandatory Before Any Investigative Summoning
- Practitioners must insist on written notice under Section 35(3) BNSS before any client appears for police questioning
- Oral summons or informal calls are legally invalid and may be challenged as harassment
- Failure to issue notice renders any subsequent statement or cooperation potentially inadmissible
Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Investigations
- Police cannot be used as tools for enforcing civil liabilities or pressuring parties in contractual disputes
- Courts will intervene where police actions are disproportionate or motivated by extraneous considerations
- A pending civil suit or arbitration is not grounds for initiating criminal inquiry without prima facie evidence of a cognizable offence
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Any deviation from BNSS procedures invites judicial scrutiny and potential liability for the investigating officers
- Petitioners in similar situations may seek injunctions or writs under Section 528 BNSS to restrain harassment
- Legal advisors should document all instances of police contact to build a record for future relief
