S. 482 CrPC | Not Open For High Court To Rely On Investigation Report In Plea To Quash FIR: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today (May 1) observed that High Courts cannot assess or call for the submission of an investigation report while exercising powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, as this authority rests exclusively with the Magistrate.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti set aside the Gujarat High Court's decision, which had relied upon the investigation report while deciding the Appellant's quashing petition, and refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellant.

Placing reliance on the case of Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi (2007) 12 SCC 369, the Court reaffirmed the law that an investigation report cannot be relied upon by the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482.

“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. Such being the position, the report of the investigating agency cannot be relied on by the High Court while exercising powers under section 482 of the Code.”, the court said in Pratibha v. Rameshwari Devi.

The Court observed that the High Court's power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, based solely on FIR allegations and undisputed facts, not on investigative opinions.

The Court reasoned that interference by the High Court at the investigation stage is unwarranted, as it could prejudice the trial by denying the Magistrate an opportunity to independently evaluate the merits of the case without prior influence from the High Court's assessment of the investigation reports.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and a pending criminal case was quashed.

Case Title: ASHOK KUMAR JAIN VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 516

Click here to read/download the judgment

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.