M.Sugumar vs. The State Of Tamilnadu

Facts

The petitioner, M. Sugumar, filed a criminal original petition seeking a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Tenkasi District, to instruct the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Alangulam, not to harass him and his family. The petitioner contended that the dispute concerned GST bills and that despite his willingness to pay the balance amount, he was being harassed by the police. The respondent police stated that the petitioner was entrusted with Rs. 47,00,000/- by the 4th and 5th respondents for GST payments but only paid Rs. 22,50,000/-. Following a GST notice, the 4th respondent lodged a complaint, and the petitioner had given an undertaking to return the balance amount, which he failed to do. The police registered a complaint based on this non-settlement.

Held

The Court acknowledged that while the dispute appeared to be of a civil nature concerning business transactions and alleged misappropriation of GST funds, it was conscious of its power under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to ensure police powers are exercised lawfully and not to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings without essential ingredients of an offence. To allay the petitioner's apprehensions and ensure fairness, the Court issued specific directions. These included requiring the police to issue written summons under Section 62 Cr.P.C / 64 BNSS, 2023, specifying the date, time, and purpose of enquiry, prohibiting oral summons. The enquiry was to be completed within two weeks of the petitioner's appearance. If a cognizable offence was found, the petitioner was to be given prior written notice before FIR registration. If the dispute was found to be civil, the complaint was to be closed forthwith without coercive action. The police were directed to refrain from interfering in or adjudicating private civil rights. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police are exceeding their jurisdiction by interfering in a dispute that appears to be civil in nature, particularly concerning GST payments, and converting it into a criminal matter without prima facie establishing a cognizable offence, as contemplated under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that he was being subjected to harassment by the respondent police despite his readiness to settle the outstanding GST amount. He sought a direction to prevent such harassment. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondent police contended that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner by the 4th respondent due to the petitioner's alleged misappropriation of funds meant for GST payments, and an undertaking given by the petitioner to return the balance amount was not fulfilled, leading to the registration of a complaint.