When can courts interfere in an ongoing investigation? | Explained

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.

What about using the phrase ‘coercive measures’?

The Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) observed that the High Courts had passed interim orders to stay arrest and said that “no coercive steps [should] be taken against the accused” without assigning any reasons. The Supreme Court held that the High Court is not justified in passing such orders either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed. It also dismissed the quashing of the petition under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) and Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whenever an interim order is passed by the High Court of “no coercive steps to be adopted”, the High Court must clarify what it means by that phrase as the term is too vague and broad, and can be easily misunderstood or misapplied. Therefore, while passing a ‘no coercive steps’ order, if the High Court intends to stay the investigation, it must specifically state so and must assign reasons thereof. Such reasons, however brief, must disclose an application of mind.

However, the Delhi High Court in Satya Prakash Bagla (supra) said that the expressions ‘coercive measure’ and ‘coercive steps’ derive their meaning, import and significance from the context and the nature of the proceedings in which they are used. To ascertain the court’s intention in employing these expressions in a given order, it is necessary to examine the nature of the relief or protection that was sought, and what the court intended to grant to a party at the relevant stage of the proceedings. It would, therefore, be neither appropriate nor judicious for a court to attribute to these expressions any inflexible, or predetermined meaning. The High Court clarified that the mere articulation of the phrases ‘no coercive measure’ or ‘no coercive steps’ with reference to a person cannot be construed as necessarily implying a stay or suspension of any ongoing investigation against that person.

R.K. Vij is a former IPS officer.