The Supreme Court recently ruled that the High Court is not entirely barred from intervening in a Section 482 CrPC petition, even if the investigation is still in its initial stages.

The bench comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a challenge to the Madras High Court's order, which declined to quash the FIR against the petitioner. The case involved allegations of misappropriating funds from the Coimbatore Education Foundation trust for personal use.

While a civil case between the petitioners and the de facto complainant was already pending in court, the complainant filed a criminal case against the petitioner, alleging that they had collected a total of ₹4,30,00,000 from students under the trust's name.

In the impugned order, the High Court noted that there was some material justifying the continuation of the investigation. However, it also acknowledged that the matter primarily appeared to be of a civil nature.

While dismissing the petition, the High Court further noted 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."

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

However, the Supreme Court clarified that no rigid rule prevents courts from intervening in a Section 482 CrPC petition, even if the investigation is at an early 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 High Court's approach, noting that it failed to consider the merits of the case during 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 set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits. It also directed the High Court's Registry (Judicial) to ensure that the restored petition is listed for consideration.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Basant R., Sr. Adv., Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR, and others; Counsel for Respondents: Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G., Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, and others.

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