The Supreme Court of India, in a key judgment delivered on May 1, clarified that High Courts are not permitted to consider or rely upon the investigation report while deciding petitions filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing an FIR. The Court emphasized that this authority lies solely with the Magistrate.
A bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti overturned a decision by the Gujarat High Court, which had referred to the investigation report while dismissing a petition seeking quashing of a criminal case. The top court found this approach incorrect and reaffirmed that such reliance is legally impermissible.
Read Also:- High Court Cannot Use Article 227 To Reject A Plaint: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits
“It is not open to the High Court to rely on the report of the investigating agency, nor can it direct the report to be submitted before it as the law is very clear that the report of the investigating agency may be accepted by the Magistrate, or the Magistrate may reject the same on consideration of the material on record,”
– Supreme Court quoting from Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi (2007) 12 SCC 369
The judgment referred to the precedent laid down in the Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi case, where the Supreme Court had clearly held that investigation reports can neither be summoned nor relied upon by the High Court in proceedings under Section 482.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Unauthorised Construction Must Be Demolished, Courts Cannot Allow Judicial Regularisation
The bench highlighted that the power under Section 482 CrPC is extraordinary, and must be used with caution. It can be exercised only when the allegations in the FIR and undisputed facts justify such interference. The Court stressed that decisions cannot be based on findings or opinions from investigation agencies.
“The High Court must base its decision strictly on the FIR and admitted facts, without going into investigation findings. Allowing such practice would pre-judge the trial process and deprive the Magistrate of independent evaluation,”
– Supreme Court observed
The Court further added that interfering at the stage of investigation would hamper the fair administration of justice. It might lead to prejudgment of the matter, which is against the principles of criminal law. The Magistrate has the statutory responsibility to decide the merit of the case once the investigation concludes.
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Gujarat High Court’s order. The pending criminal case against the Appellant was quashed as the High Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. (argued by) Ms. Natasha Dalmia, AOR Ms. Anisha Jain, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s)/ Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR (argued by) R-2 Mr. Bhagirath N. Patel, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Nayan Gupta, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR Ms. Neha Singh, Adv.
