Delhi High Court: No Early Intervention in Preliminary Investigations

• Courts in India, the UK, and the US generally agree that investigations should not be stalled by requests for disclosure.
• Recent court decisions in India have reinforced the importance of allowing investigators to proceed with their inquiries without undue interference.
• There are certain circumstances under which courts can intervene at the preliminary stage, including cases where an FIR or notice is issued without jurisdiction or is manifestly mala fide.

Courts generally avoid interfering with ongoing investigations or quash FIRs except in rare, exceptional cases.

Courts in India, the UK, and the US generally agree that investigations should not be stalled by requests for disclosure. This approach is rooted in a shared understanding of the importance of allowing investigators to proceed with their inquiries without undue interference. In India, this principle has been reinforced through recent court decisions, including a January 2026 ruling by the Supreme Court that emphasized the need for probes to proceed in accordance with law. The Delhi High Court's decision in a case involving the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) is also instructive, as it highlighted the risks of undermining an investigation with parallel proceedings before another High Court.

While courts may not intervene at the preliminary stage, there are certain circumstances under which they can step in. In India, for example, courts have been known to intervene where an FIR or notice is issued without jurisdiction, is wholly illegal, or is manifestly mala fide. Similarly, in the UK and US, courts have established exceptions to the general rule of non-interference, including cases where an investigator's conduct is genuinely irrational or in bad faith. These exceptions serve as a reminder that while investigators are not granted blanket immunity, they must still operate within the bounds of the law.

The approach to preliminary investigations varies across jurisdictions, but there are also some striking similarities. In all three countries, courts have established a high evidentiary bar for anyone seeking to interrupt an investigation before it produces an adverse consequence. This means that parties under investigation must demonstrate a strong case for intervention, rather than simply requesting disclosure or challenging the investigator's authority. By examining these different approaches, we can gain a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between investigators, courts, and the law.

Do not expect a court to intervene at the preliminary stage, because in ordinary cases it will not; instead, engage with and document the investigation process.

Source: Original reporting via a recent court decision