1. Petition for quashing First Information Report — Investigation at preliminary stage — High Court refusal to interfere due to infancy stage of investigation. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1617
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S.Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.
Kulandaisamy And Another – Appellant
Versus
State Represented By Its Inspector Of Police And Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.14318 of 2024)
Decided on : 07-03-2025
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot dismiss a petition for quashing an FIR without considering it on merits simply because the investigation is at a preliminary stage, nor can it direct parties to prove facts to the police instead of adjudicating.
Subject
Criminal Law - Procedural Matters
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of First Information Report - High Court dismissed the petition for quashing on grounds that the investigation was at a preliminary stage and suggested that the matter may be of a civil nature. Court clarified that there is no absolute rule against intervention at this stage. - Court found that the High Court failed to consider the merits of the quashing plea. (Paras 3, 4, 5, 6)
Findings of Court:
The impugned order dated 1st April, 2024 was quashed, and the Criminal Original Petition was restored for hearing on merits.
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition for quashing the FIR without considering the merits and whether intervention was appropriate at the preliminary investigation stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court must consider merits in quashing applications and that procedural rules do not prevent interference at the preliminary stage of an investigation.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order dated 1st April, 2024 was quashed, and the Criminal Original Petition was restored for hearing on merits.
Issues: Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition for quashing the FIR without considering the merits and whether intervention was appropriate at the preliminary investigation stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court must consider merits in quashing applications and that procedural rules do not prevent interference at the preliminary stage of an investigation.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants sought quashing of First Information Report; Respondent-State contended that the investigation was still at a preliminary stage. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. High Court failed to consider quashing on merits and adopted an unheard-of approach by directing parties to disprove FIR contents before the law enforcement agency. (Para 5 )
4. No absolute rule prohibits a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from interfering with an investigation at its preliminary stage. (Para 4 )
5. Impugned order set aside and petition restored to the High Court for consideration on merits. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
6. Can a court interfere with an investigation at a preliminary stage under Section 482 of the CRPC?
Yes, there is no absolute rule that prevents a court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from interfering with an investigation even if it is at a preliminary stage. (Para 4 )
7. Is it permissible for a High Court in a Section 482 quashing petition to direct parties to produce documents to disprove an FIR before the investigating agency?
No, such an approach is considered unheard of when dealing with a petition under Section 482 of the CRPC, as the court must consider the plea for quashing on its merits. (Para 5 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State shows that the investigation is still at the preliminary stage.
4. The appellants filed a petition for quashing First Information Report. In paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment, the High Court observed that there appears to be some material for the investigation to proceed, but at the same time, it was observed that the issue involved in the present case was of a civil nature. Perhaps, the High Court was of the view that the investigation cannot be interfered with 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.
Paragraph 7 of the impugned order reads thus:
"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, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
5. 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.
6. Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1st April, 2024 and restore Criminal O.P.No.7963 of 2024 to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The restored petition shall be listed on 24th March, 2025 in the morning before the roster Bench. The parties represented today shall be under an obligation to appear before the High Court on that day and no further notice shall be served.
7. A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry of this Court to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Judicature at Madras who shall ensure that the restored petition is listed before the High Court.
8. All questions are left open to be decided by the High Court.
The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
