No Absolute Rule That HC Cannot Interfere In S.482 CrPC Petition If Investigation Is At Preliminary Stage : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently held that there is no absolute rule that the High Court cannot interfere in a Section 482 CrPC petition if the investigation is at a primary stage. 

The bench of Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was deciding a challenge to the order of the Madras High Court, which refused to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner under the offence of misappropriation of funds of the trust named Coimbatore Education Foundation for their personal use. 

While a civil proceeding between the petitioners and the de facto complainant was pending in Court, the complainant registered a criminal case against the petitioner for allegedly collecting a total fees of Rs. 4,30,00,000/- from students in the name of the trust. 

The High Court in the impugned order observed that there appears to be some material for the investigation to proceed, but at the same time, it was also observed that the issue involved in the present case was of a civil nature.

The High Court, while dismissing the petition further observed in paragraph 7 of the impugned order :  

"Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to produce all the requisite documents to disprove the contents of the FIR before the Law Enforcing Agency and the Law Enforcing Agency shall refer the matter as mistake of fact subject to the cognizability of the offence. Consequently, miscellaneous petition is closed."

Regarding the High Court's approach, the Supreme Court said, "Perhaps, the High Court was of the view that the investigation cannot be interfered with at "an infancy stage". 

However, it proceeded to hold that there is no such stringent rule that Courts cannot interfere in a S.482 CrPC petition if the investigation is at an infancy stage. 

"There is no absolute rule that even if the investigation is at a preliminary stage, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CRPC") cannot interfere." 

Referring to Paragraph 7 of the impugned order, the bench disagreed with the approach taken by the High Court and observed that it overlooked the merits of the case in the hearing. 

"While dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the CRPC, such approach, as can be seen in paragraph 7 above, on the part of the High Court is unheard of. All that we can see from the impugned judgment is that the High Court has not considered the plea of the appellants for quashing the First Information Report on merits." 

The bench proceeded to set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back for hearing a fresh on merits. it further directed the Registry (Judicial) of the High Court to ensure that the restored petition is listed before the High Court.

Counsels for Petitioners : Mr. Basant R., Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR; Mr. Rajesh Rathod, Adv.; Mr. Akash Rajeev, Adv.; Mrs. Nimisha S. Menon, Adv.; Mr. Kavinesh Rm, Adv.; Mr. Naman Vishishtha, Adv; 

Counsels for Respondents : Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G.; Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR; Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.; Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv.; Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.; Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.; Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.; Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR; Mr. S. Sabarivasen, Adv.; Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv.

Case Details : KULANDAISAMY & ANR. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR.| Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14318/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 357

Click here to read the order