The story so far: The Supreme Court recently in State of U.P. & Anr versus Mohd Arshad Khan & Anr (December 2025) set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order and held that “directing a time-bound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm”. The Court said that High Courts should intervene only “where delay itself begins to cause prejudice”. The Court also did not find any justification for granting protection from arrest (or coercive action) without granting the relief actually prayed for — quashing the First Information Report (FIR). Earlier in November 2025, the Delhi High Court in Satya Prakash Bagla versus State & Ors. held that the phrase “coercive measures” did not apply to freezing of bank accounts by the police during investigation. It said that the intent of the phrase “coercive measures” was not to restrain further investigation by the police, but was used in the context of only the petitioner’s personal liberty.
When can courts interfere?
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. versus State of Maharashtra (2021) discussed the scope of the High Court’s powers to quash an investigation or pass interim orders staying an investigation. The Supreme Court said that the police have the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to investigate into a cognisable offence. The courts should not thwart any investigation into such offences. It is only in cases where no cognisable offence, or offence of any kind, is disclosed in the FIR, that the Court can stop an investigation. Thus, the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection. Courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the state operate in two specific spheres of activity and one must not tread over the other, save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in a miscarriage of justice.
