Breaking from rigid tradition, the Supreme Court has clarified that High Courts aren’t shackled by the stage of investigation when it comes to exercising their powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In essence: timing isn’t everything.
A bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismantled the idea that High Courts must keep hands off if a criminal probe is still in its infancy. The ruling came while examining a Madras High Court decision that had refused to quash an FIR accusing a petitioner of siphoning off ₹4.3 crore from the Coimbatore Education Foundation under the guise of collecting student fees.
While a civil battle was already brewing between the accused and the complainant, the latter took the criminal route—alleging personal misuse of trust funds. The High Court, despite acknowledging the matter appeared civil in nature, allowed the investigation to roll forward, brushing aside the quashing plea with a vague nod to “mistake of fact.”
But the top court wasn’t convinced. It found the High Court’s dismissal lacked proper consideration of the case’s core arguments. The Supreme Court noted that hiding behind the “preliminary stage” label isn’t a valid excuse for bypassing a plea for quashing when there might be stronger legal grounds.
“There is no absolute rule,” the apex court declared, “that courts cannot intervene merely because an investigation has just begun.”
Criticizing the High Court’s reasoning as procedurally hollow and merit-blind, the Supreme Court pointed to a flawed approach in paragraph 7 of the impugned order, which essentially advised the petitioner to hand over documents to the police instead of legally assessing the plea for quashing the FIR.
Finding that the High Court had sidestepped the real issue, the Supreme Court quashed its ruling and sent the matter back for a fresh hearing—this time with instructions to actually examine the merits.
The case, involving the petitioners Kulandaisamy and another versus the State and its investigating officer, will now return to the High Court for a reset—minus procedural shortcuts.
