District Collector Can't Order Police To Recall Closure Report Or Reopen Probe: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the District Collector cannot pass an executive mandate to the police authorities to recall the closure report or reopen the investigation into a criminal case. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 284]

The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai further emphasized that such orders would amount to "allowing the executive to usurp the judicial function of a Magistrate". It 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". 

A petition was filed challenging the validity of an order/memo of September 8, 2025, as well as subsequent memos by the Collector (respondent no 2). Through these memos, the Collector had issued directions to reopen the investigation and recall the Closure Report previously forwarded by the Station House Officer of Kotwali Police Station. 

Per the facts, an FIR was registered for cheating (Section 420), forgery (Section 467), forgery for cheating (Section 468), and using a forged document as genuine (Section 471) of the IPC. After the investigation was completed, it was found that there was not sufficient material against the accused and therefore a closure report was filed by SHO on May 7 and 21, 2024. 

Subsequently, the Collector issued the impugned order directing the Police Authorities to reopen the investigation and recall the closure report. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that under the scheme of CrPC, the district collector is not empowered to interfere in an investigation or direct the reopening of the investigation. Further, it was argued that the Collector is not empowered to order the recall of the closure report once it has been forwarded by the investigating agency to the competent court. 

The government counsel appearing for the State argued that the intent behind the collector's order was to ensure a fair and complete investigation. It further relied on Section 173(8) of the CrPC, which allows further investigation. 

The court noted that the core issue pertained to "Whether the District Collector possessed the statutory  jurisdiction under CrPC to direct the investigating agency to recall a closure report and reopen an investigation?"

The court noted that the scheme of the CrPC clearly delineates the powers of the investigating agency and the judiciary. The CrPC states that once an FIR is registered, the police are under an obligation to investigate the matter. Once the investigation is complete, and if no case is made out, then a closure report is forwarded to the Magistrate, who is empowered to take cognizance, under Section 173(8) CrPC. 

The judicial magistrate has three options: first is to accept the closure report and drop the proceedings, second is to reject the report and take cognizance under Section 190 CrPC, or the third is to direct further investigation under Section 156 CrPC. 

The bench noted that the impugned memos from the Collector are "entirely alien to the scheme of CrPC". Thus, the bench held that the memos passed by the collector cannot be sustained. 

Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and set aside the orders. 

Case Title: Deepak Manulal Garg v State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No.48444/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 284

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Agrawal with Advocate Arjun Agrawal 

For Respondents: Government Advocate Gaurav Rawat

Click here to read/download the Order