BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 26.08.2025 DELIVERED ON : 14.10.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.OP(MD)No.10129 of 2025 R.Somasundaram : Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, D1 – Thallakulam Police Station, Madurai. : Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC / 528 BNSS seeking a direction to the first respondent to take action based on the petitioner's representation dated 23.05.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivasubramanian For Respondents: Mr.T.Senthilkumar, Additional Public Prosecutor *****

ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider his representation dated 23.05.2025, wherein he had requested the conduct of a preliminary enquiry on his complaint and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.

2.The petitioner is a mason by occupation. He had purchased a residential plot from one L.Karuppiah under Document No.1877/2010 dated 30.06.2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thallakulam. In the year 2012, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from one N.Arumugam. As collateral security for the said loan, the petitioner executed a mortgage deed in Document No.1780/2012 dated 17.05.2012 in favour of the said Arumugam. The original sale deed in Document No. 1877/2010 was also handed over to him with a promise that the same would be returned upon repayment of the loan amount.

3.The petitioner asserts that he had thereafter paid nearly Rs.6,00,000/- towards principal and interest. Despite such payment, Arumugam has refused to return the original deed and has instead demanded exorbitant interest. Left with no other option, the petitioner gave a representation dated 21.05.2025 to the respondent Police seeking to conduct a preliminary enquiry. No effective action was taken on his complaint. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

4.When the matter came up for hearing, this Court expressed its concern about the scope of “preliminary enquiry” and the practice that is being followed by the police in this regard.

5.This Court first noted the position under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The concept of “preliminary enquiry” does not find place in the Code. It was judicially evolved in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. [AIR 2014 SC 187], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“110. ... What is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. ... Other considerations such as genuineness or credibility are matters for investigation, not for registration of FIR.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that preliminary enquiry may be undertaken only in exceptional categories like matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, or cases involving abnormal delay.

6.This Court also recalled the dictum in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], wherein it was laid down as follows:-

“33.It is, therefore, manifestly clear that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further cautioned that embarking upon a roving enquiry at the pre-FIR stage would be contrary to the statutory mandate.

7.Later, in Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat [2025 SCC OnLine SC 559], the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated as under:-

“12.The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in Lalita Kumari, is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verifi