Introduction:
The Kerala High Court, in Mubina Muhamed K.M. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, WP(C) No. 18607 of 2026, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 410, reiterated an important principle governing the exercise of police powers during preliminary inquiries. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that while the police are fully empowered to summon or contact persons in connection with a complaint received by them, the existence of such a complaint cannot become a tool to pressure, intimidate, or compel the opposite party to arrive at a settlement or accept the demands of the complainant. The Court categorically held that coercive attempts to facilitate settlements under the guise of an inquiry are beyond the scope of lawful police functions.
The judgment reinforces the constitutional and legal distinction between a legitimate police inquiry and impermissible interference in civil or private disputes. Police officers are entrusted with the responsibility of investigating complaints in accordance with law. However, they are not authorised to function as mediators who compel parties to compromise or force compliance with the wishes of one side. The Court emphasized that investigative authority must always remain within the boundaries prescribed by law and cannot be exercised in a manner that infringes individual liberty or fairness.
The writ petition arose from allegations made by Mubina Muhamed K.M. and others, who approached the Kerala High Court complaining that they were being subjected to unnecessary harassment by the police. According to the petitioners, police officials repeatedly insisted on their appearance before the police without any lawful justification and they apprehended that the inquiry would be used as a means to pressure them into resolving a dispute in favour of the complainant.
The respondents, represented by the State of Kerala, explained that the petitioners had been contacted only because a complaint had been submitted before the Superintendent of Police by one Khadeeja. According to the State, the police had merely initiated an inquiry into the allegations contained in the complaint and there was no element of harassment or misuse of authority involved.
The dispute therefore required the High Court to examine the extent of police powers during a preliminary inquiry, the rights of persons summoned in connection with such inquiries, and whether the apprehension of coercive settlement justified judicial intervention.
Although the Court ultimately directed the petitioners to cooperate with the inquiry, it simultaneously issued an important caution to the police regarding the limits of their authority. The judgment serves as a reminder that while complaints must be investigated fairly, police officers cannot transform investigative proceedings into instruments of coercion for securing settlements between private parties.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioners approached the High Court alleging that they were being subjected to unwarranted interference by the police. According to them, police officials repeatedly contacted them and insisted upon their appearance before the police station despite the absence of any legal basis warranting such action. They contended that the conduct of the police amounted to harassment rather than a bona fide exercise of investigative powers.
The petitioners argued that the repeated insistence on their presence created an atmosphere of intimidation and caused unnecessary inconvenience. They maintained that the police had not disclosed any concrete material or circumstances justifying their repeated summons and therefore the inquiry itself appeared arbitrary.
A significant concern expressed by the petitioners related to the purpose behind the inquiry. Their counsel submitted that they entertained a genuine apprehension that the police would use the inquiry as an opportunity to threaten or pressure them into settling the dispute with the complainant. According to the petitioners, instead of conducting an impartial inquiry, the police were likely to compel them to comply with the complainant’s demands irrespective of the legal merits of the dispute.
The petitioners therefore sought appropriate protection from the High Court to ensure that the inquiry remained confined to its lawful purpose and was not converted into a mechanism for compelling an involuntary settlement.
The State Government, represented by the Government Pleader, opposed the allegations of police harassment. It was submitted that the petitioners had been contacted solely because a complaint had been received by the Superintendent of Police from one Khadeeja. The police, according to the Government, were merely discharging their statutory duty of conducting an inquiry into the allegations contained in the complaint.
The Government contended that contacting persons against whom allegations are made is an ordinary and essential component of every police inquiry. Such communication, by itself, cannot be characterised as harassment or abuse of authority. The State submitted that unless the inquiry itself is shown to be unlawful or conducted in an arbitrary manner, the Court should not interfere with the investigative process.
The respondents further maintained that the petitioners were under a legal obligation to cooperate with the inquiry so that the police could ascertain the true facts surrounding the complaint. According to the Government, there was nothing on record to suggest that the police had acted with mala fide intention or had exceeded their lawful powers.
While defending the inquiry, the Government also assured the Court that the police were only undertaking preliminary verification of the complaint and were acting within the framework of their statutory duties.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas carefully examined the rival submissions and distinguished between a lawful police inquiry and allegations of police harassment. The Court observed that whenever a complaint is received by the police, they are duty-bound to conduct an appropriate inquiry in accordance with law. Contacting the persons against whom allegations have been made is an ordinary and legitimate part of that process.
The Court noted that in the present case the Government had specifically informed the Court that a complaint had been received by the Superintendent of Police from one Khadeeja. The petitioners were contacted only because their participation was considered necessary for conducting the inquiry arising out of that complaint.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the mere act of contacting the petitioners or requiring their appearance before the police could not automatically be described as harassment. Since there existed a genuine complaint requiring examination, the police were justified in calling upon the petitioners to cooperate with the inquiry.
Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioners to participate in the inquiry whenever required by the investigating authorities. The Bench observed that persons against whom complaints are made cannot refuse to cooperate with lawful inquiries merely because they apprehend adverse consequences.
However, while declining to interfere with the inquiry itself, the High Court simultaneously addressed the concerns raised by the petitioners regarding possible coercion during the investigative process. The Court recognised that the apprehension expressed by the petitioners deserved serious consideration because police investigations must always remain impartial and free from improper pressure.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas emphatically clarified that the existence of a complaint does not enlarge the powers of the police beyond what the law permits. The mere filing of a complaint cannot authorise police officers to compel the opposite party to negotiate, compromise, or satisfy the demands of the complainant.
The Court categorically observed that the police cannot use the pendency of a complaint as leverage to secure settlements between private parties. Any attempt to compel one side to arrive at a compromise or abide by the demands of the complainant under the pretext of conducting an inquiry would amount to an abuse of police authority.
The Bench stated:
“The existence of a complaint cannot be used by the police to compel the opposite parties to settle or abide by any demands of the complainant, such action or conduct cannot be resorted to under the guise of any inquiry.”
The Court thereby drew a clear legal distinction between investigating allegations and resolving disputes. Investigation is a statutory function entrusted to the police for the purpose of discovering facts and enforcing criminal law. Settlement of disputes, on the other hand, must ordinarily remain voluntary unless specifically authorised by law or supervised through legally recognised mechanisms.
The judgment reinforces the broader constitutional principle that executive authorities must exercise their powers strictly within the limits prescribed by law. Police officers are expected to conduct inquiries objectively and fairly without becoming instruments for advancing the interests of one private party over another.
The Court also implicitly recognised that coercive settlements undermine both the fairness of investigations and the voluntary nature of dispute resolution. Any compromise extracted through police pressure cannot be regarded as a genuine settlement because it is obtained by exploiting the authority of the State rather than through the free consent of the parties.
By issuing this clarification, the High Court ensured that the petitioners’ participation in the inquiry would not expose them to unlawful pressure. At the same time, the Court preserved the ability of the police to discharge their statutory duty of examining complaints received by them.
The judgment therefore strikes an important balance between two competing considerations. On one hand, it recognises that police authorities must be permitted to conduct inquiries whenever complaints are received. Preventing such inquiries merely because the opposite party feels inconvenienced would seriously hamper law enforcement. On the other hand, the Court made it equally clear that investigative powers cannot be misused as instruments of coercion or intimidation.
Finding no material to conclude that the police had already acted unlawfully, the Court declined to interfere with the ongoing inquiry. Nevertheless, by expressly laying down the limitations governing police conduct, the Court ensured that the investigation would proceed within the framework of legality and fairness.
Accordingly, the writ petition was closed with a direction requiring the petitioners to cooperate with the inquiry, coupled with a clear judicial declaration that the police cannot compel parties to settle disputes or comply with the complainant’s demands under the guise of conducting an investigation.
The decision serves as an important safeguard against misuse of police powers while simultaneously reaffirming the obligation of citizens to cooperate with lawful investigations. It strengthens the principle that police authority exists to investigate allegations impartially and not to coerce settlements between private parties. By clearly demarcating these boundaries, the Kerala High Court has reinforced public confidence in fair investigation and the rule of law.