This judgment establishes that police powers do not extend to adjudicating civil disputes or facilitating possession changes without due process.

ORDER :

L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

Preface

The present petitions invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the backdrop of an allegation of police overreach in a dispute which, on the petitioner’s version, is essentially civil in nature relating to possession and enjoyment of a shop premises purchased under a registered sale deed.

2. The grievance projected is not merely of non-action on the petitioner’s earlier complaint, but of an affirmative act attributed to the fourth respondent, namely, forcibly obtaining the keys of the petitioner’s shop and handing over the same to a third party, thereby facilitating a change in possession, without recourse to any process known to law. The petitioner therefore seeks protective directions against harassment and illegal interference.

Case of the Petitioner (Gist of Facts):

3. The petitioner states that he is a practising Advocate. According to him, on 13.01.2026, he purchased a shop under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.357 of 2026 on the file of the Pazhanganatham Sub Registry, Madurai, for a sale consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-, having allegedly raised funds by pledging jewellery and borrowing from relatives.

4. It is his further case that on 04.02.2026 at about 06.48 p.m., while he was travelling in his car along with his driver, one Karikalan and Karikalan’s son Divakar allegedly forced him to stop the vehicle, criminally intimidated him, and stated that the petitioner had “managed” to purchase the shop which Karikalan himself intended to purchase, and demanded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards renovation of the said shop.

5. In this regard, the petitioner claims to have lodged an online complaint dated 04.02.2026 before the Madurai City Police, assigned reference No.HTR 26049043, against the said Karikalan and Divakar, and that no effective action was taken on the same.

6. The petitioner further alleges that on 14.02.2026, the fourth respondent visited the petitioner’s newly purchased shop, intimidated him and forcibly obtained the keys, and directed the petitioner to hand over the shop to Karikalan. It is the case of the petitioner that the fourth respondent thereafter handed over the keys to the said Karikalan, resulting in the petitioner being dispossessed, otherwise than by due process.

7. On these assertions, it is contended that police machinery has been deployed to intervene in a civil dispute and to aid a third party, and therefore the petitioner is constrained to seek intervention of this Court.

Stand of the Respondent police:

8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submitted that an FIR has been registered in Crime No.67 of 2026 dated 15.02.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 329(4), 296(b) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as against eight persons including the petitioner.

9. It was submitted that in view of the registration of the said FIR and the pendency of the investigation, the petitioner’s attempt is to obtain protective orders which may impede lawful investigation, and that the police are acting within the bounds of law.

Grounds urged:

10. The grounds urged by the petitioner, in essence, are as follows:

The petitioner’s earlier online complaint dated 04.02.2026 was not acted upon, whereas a complaint by the opposite party led to registration of an FIR after ten days, thereby demonstrating arbitrariness. The fourth respondent exceeded his authority by intervening in a title/possession dispute and by allegedly forcing delivery of keys and handing them over to a private individual, which cannot be a lawful police function. Even assuming there was a dispute between private parties, the police could, at best, call parties for enquiry in accordance with law and could not effectuate dispossession