Justice B. Pugalendhi held that summons/notice cannot be issued during preliminary inquiry. The scope of preliminary inquiry is confined to perusal of the comp

Practice of summoning parties at preliminary inquiry stage cannot be sustained in law: HC

Updated – October 21, 2025 10:50 pm IST – MADURAI

The Hindu Bureau



The practice of summoning parties at the preliminary inquiry stage cannot be sustained in law. Recognising such a practice would encourage ‘kangaroo courts’ or ‘katta panchayats’ under the guise of inquiry, observed the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.

Justice B. Pugalendhi held that summons/notice cannot be issued during preliminary inquiry. The scope of preliminary inquiry is confined to perusal of the complaint and supporting materials furnished by the complainant. If a cognisable offence is disclosed, police shall register an FIR forthwith and proceed with investigation. Any inquiry under Section 173(3) BNSS must be completed within 14 days, after approval from a DSP, and the result communicated to the complainant, the court held.

The court observed that a preliminary inquiry cannot be expanded into a mini-trial or fact-finding process to test the veracity of allegations. Its purpose is only to ascertain whether the case falls within the statutory parameters for FIR registration.

Issuance of summons to witnesses is governed by Section 179 BNSS (Section 160 CrPC), which is applicable only during the course of the investigation. The summoning of witnesses can be done by the police officer only during the process of investigation and investigation, as defined under Section 2(l) BNSS, commences only after registration of an FIR, the court observed.

The examination of persons and recording of their statements by the police officers are part of investigation under the code. The process of investigation begins only after the registration of the FIR and the purpose is to collect evidence that is admissible in court, bring out the undisclosed facts and build a case which results in submission of chargesheet, the court observed.

The court was hearing the petition filed by R. Somasundaram of Madurai. The petitioner, a mason, had purchased a residential plot from L. Karuppiah. He had borrowed ₹3 lakh from N. Arumugam. As collateral security for the loan, the petitioner executed a mortgage deed in favour of Arumugam. The original sale deed was also handed over to him with a promise that the same would be returned upon repayment of the loan amount.

The petitioner said that he had thereafter paid nearly ₹6 lakh towards principal and interest. Despite such payment, Arumugam had refused to return the original deed and has instead demanded an exorbitant interest. The petitioner gave a representation to the police seeking a preliminary inquiry. No action was taken on his complaint. Hence, the present petition was filed.

The court directed that since the petitioner’s representation had been treated as a petition inquiry, police should proceed strictly in accordance with law. If the facts reveal commission of a cognisable offence, an FIR shall be registered and further investigation shall be conducted, the court directed and disposed of the petition.

Published – October 21, 2025 08:11 pm IST

Related Topics