Police cannot bypass judicial orders by labelling disputes as ‘civil’: Madras High Court

Justice L Victoria Gowri heard the matter on June 1.

The order added that the administration of criminal justice cannot be allowed to descend into a situation where judicial mandates become contingent upon executive convenience. It noted that the complaint lodged by the petitioner undoubtedly requires investigation in the manner known to law.

‘Criminal justice system rests upon institutional discipline’

• The present Criminal Original Petition projects a disturbing narrative touching upon the sanctity of judicial orders, the limits of police discretion, and the constitutional imperative underlying the criminal justice administration.
• The case at hand is not merely about a complaint lodged by a finance company against defaulting borrowers.
• The larger question which falls for consideration before this court is whether a police officer, after having been directed by a competent magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to register a First Information Report (FIR), can still circumvent such judicial mandate by branding the dispute as “civil in nature” and, thereby, render the judicial order futile.
• The criminal justice system rests upon institutional discipline. Once a judicial order directing registration of a case is passed by a competent court after satisfaction regarding disclosure of cognisable offences, the investigative machinery cannot assume unto itself an appellate jurisdiction over such order.
• Permitting such conduct would strike at the very foundation of rule of law.

‘Can’t brush aside allegations’

• Section 175(3) of the BNSS corresponds to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The provision empowers the magistrate to direct registration and investigation where cognisable offences are disclosed. The very purpose of such provision is to ensure judicial oversight over police inaction.
• Once a magistrate applies judicial mind and records satisfaction regarding disclosure of cognisable offences, the police machinery becomes duty-bound to obey the direction.
• In the considered opinion of this court, the respondent police exceeded their jurisdiction in treating the matter as “civil in nature” after a categorical judicial direction for registration of an FIR.
• The complaint allegations cannot be brushed aside as a mere loan default dispute. The primary ground of the allegations is not confined to non-payment of instalments alone. The complaint has specific allegations.
• If such allegations are taken at face value, they prima facie disclose ingredients attracting offences relating to cheating, dishonest misappropriation, criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation.

Magistrate accepted closure report, ‘equally disturbing’

• At the stage of registration of FIR, meticulous appreciation of evidence is impermissible. The test is only whether the complaint discloses the commission of cognisable offences warranting investigation.
• The police, instead of registering the FIR and investigating the matter in accordance with law, prematurely assumed the role of an adjudicatory authority.
• Equally disturbing is the manner in which the magistrate accepted the closure report.
• The docket order reads, “Objection petition filed by petitioner returned. Further investigation report filed by police stating that the case is of a civil nature. Hence, this petition is closed.”
• The earlier judicial order directing registration of an FIR could not have been nullified through a summary docket endorsement.
• The investigating agency cannot thereafter undertake an exercise to determine whether the magistrate’s satisfaction was correct or otherwise. Such conduct would amount to institutional indiscipline.

Case of pursuit of FIR

The petitioner is the manager of Dugar Finance Investment Ltd, Tirunelveli Branch, engaged in financing commercial vehicles. According to the petitioner, two accused persons availed financial assistance from the petitioner company for the purchase of Ashok Leyland tipper lorries.

It was the case of the petitioner that the accused persons executed finance agreements undertaking repayment of the loan amount in monthly instalments and further agreeing to maintain statutory compliance such as valid permits, fitness certificates and insurance coverage for the vehicles. Initially, the instalments were allegedly paid regularly for certain periods. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the accused persons deliberately defaulted in repayment despite repeated demands.

The petitioner would further allege that when the company representatives approached the accused persons demanding production of the vehicles for recovery proceedings, the accused persons refused to produce the vehicles, and eventually informed the petitioner’s employees that the vehicles had already been dismantled and sold in parts.

It is further alleged that threats of criminal intimidation were also extended against the company personnel.

Based on the above allegations, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the police in 2022; however, no FIR was allegedly registered. The petitioner approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, by filing a petition under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

In September 2025, the judicial magistrate directed the police to register a case, conduct an investigation and file an action taken report within 30 days.

According to the petitioner, instead of complying with the judicial order, the police conducted an informal enquiry and filed a report before the magistrate stating that the dispute was civil in nature, and the magistrate accepted the said report and closed the petition.

Now, the petitioner is challenging the said closure order and alleging wilful disobedience of the earlier judicial direction.