Police must conduct a focused inquiry into alleged cheating and register an FIR if a cognizable offence emerges.

The petitioner purchased two acres of land from C. Dhanasekaran under a registered sale deed dated 10 December 2018.

The third respondent executed the deed as Dhanasekaran’s power agent.

After the petitioner’s patta was cancelled in 2022, the petitioner alleged that the fourth respondent had been involved in the original transaction and had undertaken to address defects in title.

The fourth respondent offered his wife’s property as security, but that property was also subject to a title dispute.

The petitioner complained of deception by Dhanasekaran and respondents 3 to 5 and sought registration of an FIR.

The police reported that the dispute was civil in nature, and the Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision.

1. Whether the complaint and accompanying material warranted registration of an FIR for a cognizable offence, rather than treatment solely as a civil dispute

2. Whether further police enquiry should be directed into the fourth respondent’s alleged role in the transaction and subsequent assurances

The petitioner invoked Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking a direction for investigation; the revision was filed under Sections 438 read with 442 of the BNSS.

The Court stated no separate precedent or detailed statutory test.

It directed that the competent police officer enquire into whether the fourth respondent’s alleged conduct disclosed cheating or another cognizable offence and, depending on the outcome, register an FIR or file a report.

The Court considered the parties’ respective roles as reflected in the memorandum of understanding and the other material.

It found that the third respondent’s interest was in recovering money from the fourth respondent, and that the fifth respondent had offered her property as security but had made no representation to the petitioner.

The original vendor, who was alleged to have made representations concerning the original sale, had died.

The Court therefore considered that the available material did not justify directing an FIR against respondents 3 and 5, but warranted a further enquiry into whether the fourth respondent had made deceptive representations or committed another cognizable offence.

If the officer finds that a cognizable offence was committed, an FIR may be registered; otherwise, the officer must file an appropriate report.

The Court did not direct immediate registration of an FIR.