The Supreme Court of India recently held that there is no absolute rule preventing the High Court from intervening in petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even if the investigation is still at a preliminary stage. The decision came in response to a challenge against the Madras High Court’s order, which refused to quash an FIR registered against the petitioners for alleged misappropriation of trust funds.

Case Background

The case involved a criminal complaint against individuals accused of misappropriating funds from the Coimbatore Education Foundation. The complaint alleged that the petitioners collected fees amounting to Rs. 4.3 crore from students under the trust’s name for personal gain. At the same time, a civil dispute between the complainant and the petitioners was already pending before the court.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Declines PIL for CBI Inquiry into Karnataka Honey-Trapping Case

The Madras High Court, in its impugned order, acknowledged that there was some material justifying the continuation of the investigation. However, it also observed that the matter appeared to be civil in nature. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the plea for quashing the FIR while granting the petitioners the liberty to present documents disproving the allegations before the investigating authorities.

The High Court stated in its 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 a mistake of fact subject to the cognizability of the offence. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition is closed."

The Supreme Court, comprising Justice AS Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, disagreed with the approach taken by the Madras High Court. The bench emphasized that the High Court had overlooked the merits of the case while dealing with the plea for quashing the FIR.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Overturns High Court's One-Year Moratorium on Bail Application

The Supreme Court observed:

"There is no absolute rule that even if the investigation is at a preliminary stage, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot interfere."

The Court criticized the High Court’s reasoning and held that a petition under Section 482 CrPC requires a proper examination on its merits, regardless of whether the investigation is in its early stages.

The Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s order and remitted the case for reconsideration on merits. It further directed the High Court Registry to ensure that the restored petition is promptly listed for hearing.

The Court’s order read:

"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 Supreme Court also mandated that all parties involved must appear before the High Court on the scheduled date without requiring further notice.

Read Also:- We Must Reflect: Justice Abhay Oka on Judiciary's Challenges and the Common Man's Faith

This judgment reinforces the principle that courts must assess petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC on their merits rather than dismissing them solely based on the stage of investigation. It sets a precedent for cases where individuals seek relief against criminal proceedings that are intertwined with civil disputes.

Counsels for Petitioners : Mr. Basant R., Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sudarsh Menon, AOR; Mr. Rajesh Rathod, Adv.; Mr. Akash Rajeev, Adv.; Mrs. Nimisha S. Menon, Adv.; Mr. Kavinesh Rm, Adv.; Mr. Naman Vishishtha, Adv;

Counsels for Respondents : Mr. V.Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G.; Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR; Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv.; Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv.; Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv.; Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.; Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.; Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR; Mr. S. Sabarivasen, Adv.; Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv.

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