Shreya Gupta
On March 7, 2025, the Supreme Court of India ruled that there is no absolute bar on the High Court’s authority to interfere in certain cases. This applies even when a petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The ruling further clarifies that such interference is permissible even if the investigation is still at a preliminary stage.
This decision was made by a bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while hearing an appeal against an order of the Madras High Court, which had refused to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was accused of misappropriating funds from the Coimbatore Education Foundation, a trust, for personal use.
According to the complaint, the petitioner had allegedly collected a total of ₹4.3 crores from students in the name of the trust. Notably, a civil dispute between the petitioners and the complainant was already pending in court when the complainant proceeded to file a criminal case against the petitioner.
In its impugned order, the Madras High Court acknowledged that some material existed to justify the continuation of the investigation. However, it also observed that the issue at hand appeared to be civil in nature. Consequently, while dismissing the petition to quash the FIR, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to present all necessary documents to disprove the allegations before the Law Enforcement Authorities.
The High Court further stated that if the matter was found to be based on mistake of fact, the authorities could take appropriate action depending on the cognizability of the offense. Despite this reasoning, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court seemingly believed that interference at the early stage of investigation was not permissible, but it did not substantiate this stance with legal reasoning.
The Supreme Court expressly rejected the view that Courts cannot intervene under Section 482 CrPC during the preliminary stage of an investigation, clarifying that there is no such rigid rule preventing intervention. The bench referred to Paragraph 7 of the High Court’s order and found that the approach taken was flawed.
It noted that the High Court had failed to examine the merits of the petitioner’s plea for quashing the FIR, which was a necessary step in determining the validity of the case. The Supreme Court described the High Court’s handling of the petition as unprecedented and inappropriate, emphasizing that it had not properly addressed the appellant’s request for relief.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s impugned order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration on merits. Additionally, it directed the Registry (Judicial) of the High Court to ensure that the restored petition is listed for a fresh hearing. This ruling reinforces the principle that courts are not barred from intervening in criminal investigations at an early stage and highlights the necessity of judicial scrutiny in cases where an FIR is challenged under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Name: Kulandaisamy & Anr. v. State Represented By Its Inspector Of Police & Anr.
Case Number: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14318/2024
Bench: Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Click here to access the order
Instagram: Click here.
LinkedIn: Click here.
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com