Section 173 CrPC | Collector Has No Power To Recall Closure Report Or Reopen Probe, Says MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore has held that a District Collector has no power under the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct police to recall a closure report or reopen an investigation, ruling that such interference by the executive amounts to the "usurpation" of a function that belongs exclusively to the judiciary.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai was hearing a writ petition filed by Deepak Manulal Garg, who had challenged an order passed by the Collector of the district, directing the Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali to recall a closure report already forwarded in a criminal case and to reopen the investigation.

The case arose out of an FIR registered as Crime No.96/2020 at Police Station Kotwali, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to allegations of cheating and forgery. After investigation, the police found insufficient material against the accused and forwarded closure reports on May 7 and May 21, 2024.

Instead of the matter going before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the Collector, acting as respondent No.2, passed an order dated September 8, 2025, followed by two subsequent memos, directing the police to recall the closure report and resume the probe. It was this chain of communications that the petitioner challenged before the High Court.

Senior Advocate Amit Agrawal, appearing with Advocate Arjun Agrawal for the petitioner, argued that the Collector's directions were "wholly without jurisdiction," submitting that the Cr.P.C. does not vest any authority in the District Collector to interfere with a police investigation or to direct the recall of a report already forwarded to the competent court. Government Advocate Gaurav Rawat, appearing for the State, defended the Collector's order, contending that its intent was only to ensure a "fair and complete probe" and that Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., which allows for further investigation, justified the directions issued.

The Court framed the core issue as whether the Collector possessed the statutory jurisdiction to direct the police to recall a closure report and reopen an investigation. Examining the scheme of the Cr.P.C., the bench noted that once a closure report is submitted, jurisdiction "strictly lies with the concerned Judicial Magistrate," who may accept the report, take cognizance by rejecting it, or direct further investigation.

The Court acknowledged that police retain an independent power to carry out further investigation under Section 173(8), but held that this power "cannot be invoked at the behest of an executive mandate from the District Collector." It observed that the Collector does not exercise any "supervisory, appellate, or judicial authority" over the investigative process, and that permitting the executive to compel a recall of an already-forwarded report would allow it to usurp the judicial function of the Magistrate, calling this "fundamentally destructive to the rule of law."

Holding that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, the Court found that the Collector had "traveled beyond the scope of his statutory authority" in directing both the reopening of the investigation and the recall of the closure report. As a result, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order along with the subsequent memos were quashed.

The Court, however, clarified that its ruling would not prevent the Judicial Magistrate from lawfully dealing with the closure report, nor would it bar the investigating agency from exercising its independent powers under Section 173(8), provided this is done strictly in accordance with law and "uninfluenced" by the quashed executive directives. No order was made as to costs.

Case Title: Deepak Manulal Garg vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Judgment: July 14, 2026

Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai