Case at a Glance
Seven members of a family complained that the District Crime Branch, Chengalpattu, was harassing them in the name of an enquiry into a complaint made against them to the Superintendent of Police. The prosecution said only that an enquiry was pending. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan declined to interfere with the enquiry itself, but laid down directions: persons named in a complaint and witnesses must be summoned by written summons under Section 179 BNSS stating the date and time; minutes of the enquiry must be recorded in the general, station or daily diary; persons called must not be harassed; and the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2013) 11 SC CK 0065 must be strictly followed.
A complaint dated 3 June 2026 was made to the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpattu, against the petitioners — Varadhan, three of his sons and three others. The complaint was being enquired into by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch-II, Chengalpattu. The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS, asking for a direction that the police should not harass them under the guise of the enquiry.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that they were being harassed in the name of enquiry. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that an enquiry on the complainant’s petition was pending. The order does not set out the nature of the allegations in the complaint.
The Key Question Before the Court
When the police enquire into a complaint, what safeguards must they follow in summoning the persons named and witnesses, so that the enquiry does not become harassment?
Respecting the Investigation, Preventing Harassment
The Court began by recognising the investigating officer’s wide powers to enquire into cognizable and non-cognizable offences, so long as the officer acts within Chapter XIII of the BNSS, and noted that even the Magistrate has no power to interfere with the actual investigation or its mode. The High Court too would not ordinarily interfere with an investigation. But it would not ignore complaints of harassment under the guise of investigation.
The Court observed that ‘harassment’ is a broad concept and that what a person under enquiry sees as harassment may look like proper conduct to a police officer. Rather than adjudicate that dispute, it laid down process safeguards: a written summons under Section 179 BNSS fixing a specific date and time, a record of the enquiry in the police station diary, no harassment of those called, and strict compliance with the preliminary-enquiry and FIR guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh. The petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.
What the Court Actually Held
- Persons named in a complaint, and witnesses, must be summoned by a written summons under Section 179 BNSS specifying the date and time of appearance.
- Minutes of the enquiry must be recorded in the general diary, station diary or daily diary of the police station.
- The police must not harass persons called for enquiry or investigation.
- The guidelines in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh on preliminary enquiry and registration of FIR must be strictly followed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- People named in complaints are frequently called to police stations by phone, repeatedly and without any record.
- A written summons and a diary entry create accountability without stopping a genuine enquiry.
- It links everyday police practice to the Supreme Court’s framework in Lalita Kumari.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For the Public
- If police want you to appear in connection with a complaint, you can expect a written summons with a date and time.
- Enquiry proceedings should be recorded in the police station diary.
- The order does not let you refuse a lawful summons — it regulates how you are called.
For Counsel
- In Section 528 BNSS petitions alleging harassment, seek process directions rather than a stay of the enquiry.
- Ask for compliance with Section 179 BNSS and diary entries as the measurable safeguard.
- Rely on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh where a preliminary enquiry drags on without an FIR decision.
Key Takeaways
- Written summons under Section 179 BNSS, with date and time, is mandatory.
- Enquiry minutes must go into the police station diary.
- No harassment of persons called for enquiry.
- Lalita Kumari guidelines must be strictly followed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the High Court stop the police enquiry?
No. The Court said it would not ordinarily interfere with an investigation; it disposed of the petition with directions on how the enquiry must be conducted.
What is Section 179 BNSS?
It empowers a police officer making an investigation to require, by written order, the attendance of persons acquainted with the facts. The Court directed that such written summons state a specific date and time.
What are the Lalita Kumari guidelines?
In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh the Supreme Court laid down when an FIR must be registered and when, and for how long, a preliminary enquiry may be held. The Court directed strict compliance.
Conclusion
The order does not tie the hands of the police; it insists that their powers be exercised on paper. A written summons, a fixed appointment and a diary entry are simple safeguards that make harassment harder and genuine enquiry easier to defend.
Practical takeaway: If you are being called to a police station repeatedly over a complaint, ask for a written summons under Section 179 BNSS — and if harassment continues, a Section 528 BNSS petition can secure directions of this kind.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com