A writ challenging a preliminary police enquiry becomes infructuous once the enquiry is closed.

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of land at Village Maharajpur, Jabalpur, and alleged that a property-boundary dispute arose after he executed a registered sale deed for part of the land in favour of respondent No. 4.

An earlier FIR, Crime No. 312/2022, was registered against him under Sections 294, 448, 427 and 506/34 of the IPC; investigation culminated in a charge-sheet, and the petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings in M.Cr.C. No. 55193/2025, which remained pending.

Subsequently, the City Superintendent of Police issued notice dated 23.03.2026 requiring the petitioner to appear in connection with a complaint by respondent No. 4.

The State further informed the Court that the preliminary enquiry had been closed on 06.08.2026 for want of substantial material indicating commission of a cognizable offence.

Whether the subsequent police proceedings amounted to an impermissible parallel enquiry or further investigation into Crime No. 312/2022?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to directions restraining telephonic summons and requiring disclosure of the complaint and issuance of notice in accordance with Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023?

Whether any effective relief survived after the State closed the subsequent preliminary enquiry on 06.08.2026?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, under which writ relief is discretionary and ordinarily requires a live and enforceable grievance.

The Court considered the petitioner’s reliance on Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the procedure for requiring a person to appear before the police, but did not undertake a final adjudication on its alleged violation because the enquiry had already concluded.

The Court applied the principle that courts do not grant effective relief against an action that has already concluded, nor decide claims resting merely on apprehension of future action.

The Court found that Crime No. 312/2022 concerned an earlier property-related incident and had already culminated in a charge-sheet, while the subsequent complaint was stated to concern alleged forgery of documents relating to Government land and a false agreement for unlawful gain.

On that basis, the Court did not accept that the subsequent process was shown, on the available material, to be a continuation or parallel investigation into the earlier FIR.

More importantly, the State’s report dated 06.08.2026 established that the preliminary enquiry had been closed after no substantial material indicating a cognizable offence was found.

Since the challenged enquiry and the immediate cause of grievance had ceased to exist, no effective writ could be issued restraining it, and the claim concerning repeated telephonic summons was treated as non-surviving on the record.

Accordingly, no effective relief could be granted in the writ petition, which was dismissed as having become infructuous.

The legality of FIR No. 312/2022 and the consequential charge-sheet was expressly left open for determination in M.Cr.C. No. 55193/2025.

The Court further directed, by way of clarification, that any future police action must be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and must not circumvent the pending judicial proceedings.