##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18892

N

1 W.P. o.48444/2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI

WRIT PETITION No.48444 of 2025

DEEPAK MANULAL GARG

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Amit Agrawal – Senior Advocate with Shri Arjun

Agrawal – Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Gaurav Rawat – Government Advocate for the

respondents.

Reserved on : 09/07/2026

Post on : 14/07/2026

___________________________________________________________

O R D E R

1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court

challenging the legality, validity, and jurisdictional propriety of the

order/memo dated 08/09/2025 (Annexure P/19), as well as

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: JAGADISHAN

AIYER

Signing time: 14-07-2026

18:10:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18892

N

2 W.P. o.48444/2025

subsequent memos (Annexure P/20 and P/21) issued by the

respondent No.2 / Collector. By the impugned communications, a

direction has been issued to reopen the investigation and "recall" the

Closure Report previously forwarded by the Station House Officer

(SHO), Police Station Kotwali, in Crime No.96/2020.

2. The factual matrix of the case reveals that an FIR bearing

Crime No.96/2020 was registered at Police Station Kotwali for

offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the

Indian Penal Code (IPC). Upon completion of the investigation, the

Investigating Officer did not find sufficient material against the

accused. Consequently, Closure Reports were forwarded by the SHO

on 07/05/2024 and 21/05/2024, which have been placed on record as

Annexures P/17 and P/18.

3. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 / Collector issued the

impugned order (Annexure P/19), directing the police authorities to

recall the aforementioned Closure Report and reopen the

investigation into the crime.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that

the impugned order (Annexure P/19) and the subsequent memos are

wholly without jurisdiction. It is submitted that the statutory scheme

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) does not vest any

power in the District Collector to interfere with an investigation, to

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: JAGADISHAN

AIYER

Signing time: 14-07-2026

18:10:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18892

N

3 W.P. o.48444/2025

direct its reopening, or to order the "recall" of a Closure Report once

it has been forwarded by the investigating agency to the competent

Court. The executive interference in the domain of criminal

investigation is ultra vires, arbitrary, and liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondent/State supported the impugned orders, submitting that the

intent behind the Collector’s directive was to ensure a fair and

complete probe. It is contended that under Section 173(8) of the

Cr.P.C., there is an express provision for "further investigation," and

the impugned communications should be viewed in that light.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. The core issue which requires adjudication is whether the

District Collector possesses the statutory jurisdiction under the

Cr.P.C. to direct the investigating agency to "recall" a Closure Report

and "reopen" an investigation.

8. The scheme of the Cr.P.C. clearly demarcates the powers of

the investigating agency and the judiciary. Once an FIR is registered,

it is the statutory prerogative of the police to investigate the matter.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, if the police find no case is

made out, a final report (Closure Report) is forwarded under Section

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: JAGADISHAN

AIYER

Signing time: 14-07-2026

18:10:41

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:18892

N

4 W.P. o.48444/2025

173(2) of the Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate empowered to take

cognizance.

9. Upon the submission of such a report, the jurisdiction

strictly lies with the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The Magi