Police Enquiry Cannot Become a Tool of Harassment: Madras High Court Issues Guidelines. The Court recognised the need to balance the investigating officer’s statutory power to conduct an enquiry with the fundamental requirement that such power must not be misused to harass individuals.

Police harassment during an informal inquiry or investigation violates legal protections. Under Indian law, police must issue a formal written summons (under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, replacing old code provisions), record all inquiry minutes in the official station daily diary, and avoid using intimidation or illegal pressure tactics. [1, 2]

The Madras High Court has issued important guidelines governing the manner in which police officers should conduct an enquiry or investigation, particularly when persons named in a complaint or witnesses are called to the police station in Police Enquiry Harassment matter.

To curb the misuse of preliminary inquiries and protect citizens from Police Enquiry Harassment, the Madras High Court (in R. Raja v. State) laid down strict mandatory guidelines for police officers summoning individuals or witnesses for an investigation.

Core Guidelines Issued by the Court

CASE Background

The petition arose from a grievance that the police were allegedly harassing the persons concerned under the guise of an enquiry or investigation.

The High Court noted that investigation into cognizable and non-cognizable offences is an important statutory function of the police, provided that such power is exercised legitimately within the framework of Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

High Court’s Approach

The Court made it clear that it would normally not interfere with a genuine police investigation.

At the same time, the Court stated that it cannot turn a blind eye when allegations of harassment by police officers under the guise of investigation are brought before it.

The Court observed that the expression “harassment” can have different meanings for different persons. To prevent unnecessary disputes and ensure transparency, it therefore considered it necessary to prescribe procedural safeguards.

Four Important Guidelines

The Madras High Court issued the following directions:

1. Written Summons Must Be Issued

Whenever a person named in a complaint or a witness to the alleged incident is required for enquiry or investigation, the police officer must issue a written summons under Section 179 BNSS.

The summons must specify a particular date and time for the person’s appearance before the investigating officer.

2. Enquiry Must Be Properly Recorded

The minutes of the enquiry must be recorded in the police station’s:

• General Diary;
• Station Diary; or
• Daily Diary.

This requirement creates an official record of the enquiry and promotes transparency in the investigative process.

3. No Harassment During Enquiry

The Court expressly directed police officers to refrain from harassing persons who are called for enquiry or investigation.

The power to investigate is therefore not an unrestricted licence to subject complainants, accused persons, witnesses or other persons to unnecessary pressure or intimidation.

4. Lalita Kumari Guidelines Must Be Followed

The High Court further directed the police to strictly comply with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, particularly those relating to preliminary enquiry and registration of FIRs.

What Does This Mean for Persons Called by Police?

The judgment provides an important procedural safeguard.

If a person is required to participate in a police enquiry or investigation, the Court has emphasised that the process should be identifiable, documented and conducted in accordance with law.

A written summons specifying the date and time creates clarity about why and when the person is required to appear, while recording the enquiry in the police diary creates an official trail of the proceedings.

Does the Judgment Restrict Police Investigation?

No.

The Court specifically recognised that police officers possess the statutory power to enquire into and investigate offences.

The judgment does not prevent legitimate investigation. Instead, it seeks to ensure that investigative powers are exercised within the statutory framework and without harassment.

Key Takeaways

• Police have statutory powers to conduct enquiries and investigations.
• Persons named in a complaint or witnesses should be summoned through a written summons under Section 179 BNSS.
• The summons should specify a definite date and time.
• Enquiry proceedings should be recorded in the General/Station/Daily Diary.
• Police officers must refrain from harassment during enquiry or investigation.
• The Lalita Kumari guidelines regarding preliminary enquiry and FIR registration must be strictly followed.
• The High Court can intervene where investigative powers are allegedly being misused to harass individuals.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s order strikes a balance between effective police investigation and protection against investigative harassment.

The judgment does not take away the police’s power to investigate. Rather, it introduces greater procedural discipline by requiring written summons, proper documentation of enquiries and adherence to established Supreme Court guidelines.

For persons called for police enquiry, the decision is significant because it reinforces the principle that investigation must be conducted according to law and cannot become a source of unnecessary harassment.

Source: Madras High Court, order dated 3 August 2026, in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1891 of 2026.

By Satish Mishra, Advocate (99888-17966)