Madras High Court Shields Men from Police Harassment

Police Cannot Use Enquiry as a Tool for Harassment, Rules High Court

Summary
The Madras High Court has ruled that police cannot harass men under the guise of an enquiry without following due process. The case of Prasanna Sankaranarayanan highlights a glaring misuse of police powers, where men are summoned repeatedly without an FIR, destroying their mental peace, careers, and dignity. The court laid down strict guidelines to curb such harassment, ensuring that men are not victimized by biased complaints.

Facts Of The Case

Prasanna Sankaranarayanan, a Chennai-based professional, was caught in a vindictive marital dispute. His wife filed a complaint against him, triggering relentless police harassment—without even an FIR. He was summoned multiple times without written notice, disrupting his life and work.

Facing constant intimidation, Prasanna moved the Madras High Court, demanding protection from this misuse of power.

Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Empowers the High Court to prevent the abuse of legal procedures.
• Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Requires written summons for an enquiry, detailing date and time.
• Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP (2014 2 SCC 1) – Supreme Court ruling that police must conduct a preliminary enquiry before registering an FIR in specific cases.

Arguments Of Petitioner And Respondent

Prasanna Sankaranarayanan’s Arguments

• He was harassed under the pretext of an enquiry, despite no FIR being lodged.
• The police failed to follow legal procedures, summoning him without formal notice.
• The repeated visits caused mental agony, professional setbacks, and reputational damage.
• This was a clear case of legal misuse to intimidate him.

Respondents’ (Police) Arguments:

• They were conducting an enquiry based on his wife’s complaint.
• No coercion or undue harassment took place.
• Their actions were within legal limits.

Court’s Observation

The High Court acknowledged the harassment and ruled that:

• Police are not above the law – They cannot misuse their authority to harass men.
• Written summons are mandatory – Informal calls and forced visits are illegal.
• Men must not be treated as criminals based on mere complaints—due process is essential.

To prevent further misuse, the court issued strict guidelines for police enquiries:

1. No Informal Summons – Written notice under Section 179 is compulsory.
2. Every Enquiry Must Be Recorded – No off-the-books harassment.
3. No Unlawful Detention or Pressure – Police must act fairly, not as private enforcers.
4. Lalita Kumari Guidelines Must Be Followed – An FIR cannot be registered arbitrarily.

Conclusion Of The Judgment

The High Court ruled that police cannot harass an individual under the pretext of enquiry. If harassment continues, the victim has the right to seek legal protection. This judgment is a critical safeguard against the weaponization of police procedures in matrimonial disputes.

Comments from the author of this website

• Legal System as a Tool of Harassment – False or exaggerated complaints allow police to mentally and financially drain men without even an FIR. This case proves how men are guilty until proven innocent.
• No Consequences for Police Overreach – Even when courts step in, officers who harass men face zero accountability. Until strict punishments are imposed, the problem will continue.
• Men’s Lives Are Being Destroyed – Loss of jobs, social humiliation, and extreme mental distress are common realities for men who are falsely targeted in marital disputes. A single baseless complaint can ruin a man’s entire life.

This judgment is a strong step forward, but unless legal safeguards are enforced with real consequences, men will continue to suffer at the hands of a biased system.

Read Complete Judgement Here