The Madras High Court recently ruled that police officers do not possess the authority to circumvent a judicial mandate to register an FIR by unilaterally branding a dispute as “civil in nature”.

Justice L Victoria Gowri was dealing with a plea of the manager of Dugar Finance Investment Ltd seeking to nullify the docket order issued by the magistrate’s court that closed his case after the police submitted a report claiming the matter was “civil in nature”. His plea was to compel the police to register a formal criminal case based on his original complaint from November 28, 2022.

“Judicial orders cannot be permitted to evaporate into insignificance through administrative acceptance of a police report inconsistent with the very judicial direction earlier issued. 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,” the court said 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.

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.