The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed a communication issued by a Collector to recall a closure report while observing that the Collector does not exercise any supervisory, appellate, or judicial authority over the statutory investigative process under the CrPC to compel the SHO to "recall" a report that has already been forwarded.

The High Court was considering a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the impugned communications issued by the respondent Collector to reopen the investigation and "recall" the Closure Report previously forwarded by the Station House Officer (SHO) in a criminal case.

The Single Bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai held, “While it is true that the Police retain an independent power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., this power cannot be invoked at the behest of an executive mandate from the District Collector. The Collector does not exercise any supervisory, appellate, or judicial authority over the statutory investigative process under the Cr.P.C. to compel the SHO to "recall" a report that has already been forwarded. Permitting such an action would amount to allowing the executive to usurp the judicial function of the Magistrate, which is fundamentally destructive to the rule of law.”

Senior Advocate Amit Agrawal represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate Gaurav Rawat represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find sufficient material against the accused. Consequently, Closure Reports were forwarded by the SHO. Subsequently, the respondent Collector issued the impugned order directing the police authorities to recall the aforementioned Closure Report and reopen the investigation into the crime.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the scheme of the CrPC demarcates the powers of the investigating agency and the judiciary. The Bench stated that once an FIR is registered, it is the statutory prerogative of the police to investigate the matter. Upon conclusion of the investigation, if the police find no case is made out, a final report (Closure Report) is forwarded under Section 173(2) of the CrPC to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance.

The Bench clarified that upon the submission of such a report, the jurisdiction strictly lies with the concerned Judicial Magistrate who can either accept the report and drop the proceedings or reject the report and take cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) of the CrPC or direct further investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

The Bench was of the view that the impugned directive by the Collector was entirely alien to the scheme of the CrPC “An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity”, it stated while further adding, “The Collector has travelled beyond the scope of his statutory authority in directing the reopening of the investigation and the recall of the Closure Report.”

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the impugned order/memo.

Cause Title: Deepak Manulal Garg v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:18892)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Agrawal, Advocate Arjun Agrawal

Respondent: Government Advocate Gaurav Rawat

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Jai Kumar Pillai

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.