Madras High Court Directs Police To Stop “Current Paper Enquiries”; Bars Summons In Civil Disputes Without Cognisable Offence Under Section 173 BNSS
Isabella Mariam
The Madras High Court at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi, directed that police officers across Tamil Nadu must not interfere in matters of a purely civil nature, including money, property, and contractual disputes, under the pretext of enquiry. The Court criticised the practice of police conducting “current paper enquiries” without any statutory authority, holding that such informal proceedings have no legal standing. Justice Pugalendhi observed that individuals cannot be compelled to appear before the police unless a cognisable offence has been disclosed and duly recorded in accordance with Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court further instructed the Director General of Police to circulate and ensure strict adherence to these directions across the State.
The petitions were filed seeking directions restraining police personnel from summoning or harassing individuals under the guise of enquiry in matters that the Court repeatedly recognised as civil disputes relating to money transactions, property dealings, and sale agreements. In the first matter, the petitioners, a family involved in jewellery business, alleged that despite earlier criminal cases registered against private respondents, a fresh complaint alleging non-payment of a large sum was entertained as a “current paper enquiry,” leading to repeated summons without an FIR.
In a subsequent petition, a widow who had entered into a sale agreement to avoid bank recovery proceedings claimed that the purchaser lodged a police complaint demanding repayment and that she was detained for several hours. The complaint was initially closed as civil in nature, but later revived after a direction in a writ petition for fresh enquiry. Another petitioner asserted that a prior closure of a money dispute under CSR was disregarded when a second complaint on the same allegations was forwarded to the police, resulting in issuance of summons under Sections 94 and 179 of the BNSS.
The next petitioner, a property owner, alleged harassment through repeated enquiries over a sale agreement dispute already closed once as civil. Another petitioner, a doctor, alleged delay in registering an FIR over a financial transaction and sought prompt filing of the final report; the prosecution informed that the charge-sheet had been filed. In the final petition, the petitioner contended that despite earlier closure of a small personal loan dispute as civil, a renewed “current paper enquiry” continued and summons were issued for almost a year.
In all matters, the statutory provisions invoked included Sections 94, 173(3), and 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court treated the common issue—police entertaining civil disputes—together and delivered a single order.
Justice B. Pugalendhi recorded that the disputes in all the petitions were “undeniably civil in nature — relating to sale agreements, money transactions, and property disputes.” The Court observed that none of the complaints disclosed “ingredients of a cognizable offence such as cheating, criminal breach of trust, or criminal intimidation backed by specific material particulars.”
The Court stated 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.” It noted that “no such ingredients are found in the present matters,” yet the police had conducted what were termed as “current paper enquiries.”
Justice Pugalendhi criticised this practice, observing that “the so-called ‘current paper enquiry’, a term alien to the Code of Criminal Procedure / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and absent in any officially sanctioned police manual or standing order, is being increasingly resorted to by the police without any formal registration or record.” He recorded that “these 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.”
The Court observed that “any 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.” It warned that “such unrecorded steps create a shadow administrative system, where matters may be selectively acted upon or indefinitely kept pending, without any audit trail.”
Justice Pugalendhi further recorded that “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.” He noted that “it risks converting the police station into an informal forum for resolving private civil grievances, contrary to the rule of law.”
The Court observed 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.” It recorded that “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.”
Finally, the Court stated 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.”
The Court directed that “Police officers shall not entertain or conduct enquiries in disputes which are civil in nature, such as those involving money, property, or contracts. The practice of ‘current paper enquiry’ has no statutory recognition and shall be discontinued forthwith.”
“Summons or notices under Sections 94 or 179 BNSS shall be issued only after registration of an FIR, and never during preliminary or petition enquiry. 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.”
“In all other cases, complainants shall be advised to approach the appropriate Civil Court or forum.” It required that “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.”
“Violation of these directions by any police officer shall invite departmental action under the relevant service rules.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. A. Abdul Kabur; Ms. K.P. Ilakkiya; Mr. M.S. Jeyakarthik; Mr. S.M.A. Jinnah; Mr. M. Pandian; Mr. R. Anand
For the Respondents: Mr. T. Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Case Title: Abdul Kadar v. Commissioner of Police & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MHC:2518
Case Number: Crl.OP(MD)Nos.9478, 9529, 10268, 10356, 10373, 10895 of 2025
Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi
