Madras HC Directs Police to Issue Written Summons, Record Enquiry Minutes to Prevent Harassment During Investigation
Disposing a writ petition from a T.Nagar resident, the Madras High Court issued four binding guidelines on how police must conduct enquiries and summon persons named in complaints.
The Madras High Court, on 3 August 2026, disposed of a criminal writ petition filed by R. Raja, a resident of T.Nagar, Chennai, who alleged that police attached to the R-1 Mambalam Police Station were harassing him under the guise of an enquiry triggered by a complaint. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly, declined to interfere with the investigation itself but issued four operational guidelines that police officers must follow when summoning or questioning persons named in a complaint. The directions draw on the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the Supreme Court's constitution bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, [2014 (2) SCC 1], and are addressed to three senior police officers in Chennai.
The Complaint Before the Court
R. Raja, residing at Nu Tech Apartment, Raman Street, Pondy Bazar, T.Nagar, Chennai, moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus. His immediate prayer was a direction to the respondents — the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and the Inspector of Police (Law and Order) at R-1 Mambalam Police Station — to consider his representation dated 20 June 2026.
The core grievance was that police were using an ongoing enquiry or investigation as cover to harass him. Counsel M/s. L. Infant Dinesh appeared for the petitioner; Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar appeared as Government Counsel for all three respondents.
The Legal Tension: Investigating Power Versus Judicial Oversight
Justice Ilanthiraiyan acknowledged a structural tension that has produced a steady stream of similar petitions before the court. The power to investigate both cognizable and non-cognizable offences belongs to the investigating officer, constrained only by the framework of Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Although the Sanhita positions the Magistrate as a guardian at every stage of police investigation, the court noted that this guardianship does not extend to directing the mode or manner of the actual investigation.
It is against this backdrop that persons named in complaints frequently approach the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, alleging that repeated, unstructured police calls amount to harassment. The court noted that the word “harassment” carries a very wide meaning and what feels like harassment to a petitioner may not be viewed in the same way by the investigating officer.
The court was equally clear, however, that it would not turn a blind eye when credible instances of police harassment under the guise of investigation are brought before it.
Four Guidelines Issued by the Court
Rather than issuing a direction targeted solely at the petitioner's case, Justice Ilanthiraiyan framed four guidelines intended to govern police conduct in such situations generally:
Written summons with date and time. Any person named in a complaint, or any witness, must be summoned exclusively through a written summons issued under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The summons must specify a particular date and time for the person to appear before the police for enquiry or investigation. Verbal or informal calls to the station are not a sanctioned mode.
Recording of enquiry minutes. The minutes of every enquiry conducted at the police station must be entered in the general diary, station diary, or daily diary of that station. This ensures a traceable record of who was questioned, when, and for how long.
Prohibition on harassment. The police officer conducting the enquiry or investigation must refrain from harassing persons who appear before them in response to a summons.
Adherence to Lalita Kumari guidelines. The guidelines on preliminary enquiry and registration of an FIR laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2014 (2) SCC 1], must be strictly followed.
Why the Reasoning Matters
The judgment does not create new law, but it operationalises existing statutory and judicial standards into concrete police-station-level obligations. Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita already provides for written summons, yet the court's order signals that informal oral calls to the police station — a common source of grievance — fall outside what the statute permits when persons are being summoned for enquiry.
Mandating diary entries for every enquiry session creates an audit trail that is directly accessible to supervisory officers and can be examined by courts in future writ petitions alleging harassment. Linking these directions to Lalita Kumari — which governs when police must register an FIR versus conducting a preliminary enquiry — closes another gap: it makes clear that the procedural discipline demanded at the FIR-registration stage carries through into the enquiry stage as well.
The court also addressed the standard objection available to police that the guardianship role of the Magistrate does not permit court interference in how an investigation is conducted. Justice Ilanthiraiyan accepted that principle but distinguished between non-interference with investigation strategy and the court's obligation to act when the investigative process itself is used as an instrument of harassment.
Order
WP Crl. No. 1891 of 2026 was disposed of on 3 August 2026 with the four guidelines set out above. No costs were awarded. The order is addressed to the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner of Police at R-1 Mambalam Police Station, the Inspector of Police (Law and Order) at R-1 Mambalam Police Station, and the Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.