“Not a Police Case” — When PDRM Redirects Instead of Investigates

 

Blog Series on Fabricating False Evidence and Procedural Barriers

Post 3: 

 

⚖️ Introduction

When Malaysians lodge police reports, they expect criminal wrongdoing to be investigated. Yet, many complainants encounter a familiar barrier: reports are dismissed with phrases like “this is for the court” or “this is a civil matter.” My own experience illustrates this vividly. I filed a police report against an engineer involving false evidence and misrepresentation — clear criminal elements under the Penal Code. Instead of investigating, PDRM told me to refer the matter to KPKT. I complied, but no reply ever came, even after a reminder.

 

This experience mirrors what the infographic above shows: how police reports are often blocked before investigation — even when they allege criminal offences.

 

📊 Infographic Visualising how police reports are often blocked before investigation — even when they allege criminal offences. Only when PDRM accepts jurisdiction and chooses to act does an investigation proceed.

 

🚪 The Gatekeeping Role of PDRM

Observers note that PDRM often redirects complaints rather than investigating them. Common outcomes include:

 

Dismissal as civil dispute: Even when fraud or misrepresentation is alleged.

 

Referral to other agencies: Complainants are told to approach ministries or regulators.

 

No follow‑up: Agencies sometimes fail to respond, leaving reports unresolved.

 

This creates a procedural loop:

 

Police won’t act.

 

Agencies won’t respond.

 

Courts cannot proceed without police investigation.

 

The result: justice delayed, and often denied.

 

📌 A Case in Point: The Engineer Complaint

My police report against an engineer alleged false evidence and misrepresentation — offences under Sections 191–193 and 417 of the Penal Code.

 

PDRM declined to investigate, stating it was a matter for KPKT.

 

I complied and wrote to KPKT.

 

Despite a follow-up reminder, no response was received.

 

This case demonstrates how inter-agency deflection can block justice, even when criminal elements are present and properly documented.

 

🔍 Why This Matters

When police reports involving fraud or false evidence are dismissed as “civil matters,” the consequences are serious:

 

Criminal accountability is avoided.

 

Public confidence in institutions erodes.

 

Victims are left without remedy.

 

Critics argue that this practice undermines the very purpose of criminal law: to protect society from wrongdoing.

 

🖊️ Conclusion: Closing the Gap

My case is not isolated. It reflects a broader pattern of institutional avoidance — where police and agencies deflect responsibility, leaving complainants stranded.

 

To restore public confidence and uphold the rule of law, Malaysia must address this procedural gap. That’s the focus of Part 4:

 

How reforms can ensure that complaints involving fraud, false evidence, and misrepresentation are treated as criminal matters.

 

How clearer guidelines, inter-agency accountability, and public empowerment can close the justice loop.

 

📚 Series Context

This is the third post in our 4‑part series on fabricating false evidence and procedural barriers.

 

Post 1: Introduction to fabricating false evidence.

 

Post 2: Section 340 CPC and the dismissal of private complaints.

 

✅ Post 3 (this post): PDRM’s gatekeeping role in dismissing police reports.

 

Next: Post 4: Pathways to reform and public empowerment.