Introduction

In a significant ruling addressing the misuse of police powers during preliminary inquiries, the Madras High Court held that while courts will not normally interfere with legitimate police investigations, they will not “turn a blind eye” to instances of police harassment.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan disposed of a Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), laying down strict safeguards and guidelines to prevent harassment of citizens summoned for police inquiries.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• Rahul Jagannathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the respondent police had been subjecting the petitioner to continuous harassment under the guise of an inquiry.
• Urging the intervention of the Court, the counsel invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSSto direct the police officials to refrain from such arbitrary harassment.

State’s Stand:

• R. Ganesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State, submitted that a petition inquiry was currently pending on the file of the respondent police (in C.No.1667/COP/Avadi/Grievance of 2026) based on a complaint lodged by the de facto complainant against the petitioner.

Observations of the Court:

Noting that investigating officers possess unfettered powers to conduct inquiries into cognizable or non-cognizable offences under Chapter XIII of the BNSS, the Court observed that the Magistrate does not possess the power to interfere with the actual mode or process of investigation. Consequently, this statutory gap results in numerous petitions being filed before the High Court seeking protection from police high-handedness.

The Court made crucial observations regarding its jurisdiction and the subjective nature of “harassment”:

• Balancing Investigation and Protection:The bench noted that while Section 528 of the BNSS powers are exercised sparingly to avoid interrupting investigations, the judiciary cannot ignore clear instances of harassment.
• Defining Harassment:The Court remarked that the term ‘harassment’ possesses a very wide meaning, and what constitutes harassment to a citizen might not be perceived similarly by a police officer.

Guidelines Issued by the Court:

To circumscribe police discretion and prevent arbitrary actions during inquiries, the Madras High Court laid down the following mandatory directives:

1. Written Summons:Any person named in a complaint or called as a witness must be summoned strictly through a written summon issued under Section 179 of the BNSS, specifying the precise date and time for appearance.
2. Station Diary Maintenance:The minutes and proceedings of the inquiry must be meticulously recorded in the general diary, station diary, or daily diary of the police station.
3. Prohibition of Harassment:Police officers must strictly refrain from harassing individuals called upon for an inquiry or investigation.
4. Adherence to Supreme Court Precedents:The guidelines governing preliminary inquiries and the mandatory registration of FIRs established by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh must be strictly complied with.