Police Can't Compel Appearance In Absence Of Cognisable Offence: Madras High Court Criticises 'Current Paper Enquiry' By Police

Justice B. Pugalendhi observed that such informal proceedings have no statutory recognition and the individuals could not be compelled to appear before the police unless a cognisable offence had been disclosed and recorded in accordance with Section 173 of BNSS.

“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 said.

The court reiterated that police could not conduct inquiries into disputes that were civil in nature unless some criminality was shown. The court added that allowing such practices would convert the police station into an informal forum for resolving private civil grievances.

“The continuation of such an enquiry despite the absence of any criminal ingredient not only causes hardship to the parties involved but also sets a disturbing precedent of police overreach into civil disputes. It risks converting the police station into an informal forum for resolving private civil grievances, contrary to the rule of law,” the court said.

The court was hearing a batch of pleas seeking directions to the police not to harass. In all the cases, the complaints were civil in nature. However, the complainants had lodged complaints with the police, who in turn had summoned the petitioners.

The court observed that time and again, the Supreme Court and the high courts have repeatedly issued directions against police conducting enquiries in civil disputes. The court added that even as per the Police Standing Order PSO. No. 562, the police were specifically prohibited from investigating cases of a civil nature.

The court noted that as per its previous orders, the Director General of Police had issued a circular restraining the police from entertaining the complaint of a civil nature. The court also noted that a similar circular was issued by the Additional Director General of Police in 2024.

While the additional public prosecutor acknowledged that the disputes in the present case were related to private financial transactions, he added that the police had only conducted “current paper” verifications and no FIRs had been registered.

The court noted two disturbing things. Firstly, the court noted that in many cases, the complainants were directly lodging complaints before the higher officials, like the Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, who then mechanically forwarded it to the Station House Officers (SHOs) without ascertaining whether the complaints could be entertained by the police.

The second disturbing thing the court noted was the “current paper enquiry” that was being undertaken by the police. The court noted that such a term was alien to the CrPC/BNSS and absent in any officially sanctioned police manual or standing order. The court also noted that such enquiries were not reflected in the General Diary of the prescribed register and thus remained invisible to judicial or administrative scrutiny.

The court observed that any action without generating any corresponding record could not be countenanced in law. The court observed that permitting such undocumented enquiries would open doors to arbitrary conduct at the police station level without scrutiny.

The court also criticised police officers engaging in Kattapanchayats and acting as recovery agents for collecting money in financial transactions.

“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,” the court said.

The court took on record a status report filed by the Assistant Inspector General of Police, High Court Cases Monitoring Cell, detailing the circular issued by the DGP regarding preliminary enquiry. Noting that the circular and directions effectively clarify/rectify the earlier disturbing trends. The court closed the pleas.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. A. Abdul Kabur, Ms. K. P. Ilakkiya, Mr. M. S. Jeyakarthik, Mr. S. M. A. Jinnah, Mr. M. Pandian, Mr. R. Anand

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. T. Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Abdul Kadar and Others v. Commissioner of Police and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 403

Case No: Crl. OP (MD)No.9478 of 2025