The Supreme Court recently decided a key case involving investigations and the limits of court orders. It set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order that forced a time-bound investigation. The Court said such orders must be "the exception rather than the norm." High Courts should only intervene when delays cause real harm to the case or justice. The Court also rejected protecting suspects from arrest without cancelling the FIR itself. Earlier, the Delhi High Court ruled that "coercive measures" does not include freezing bank accounts. It explained that "coercive measures" relate to personal liberty, not investigation steps like account freezes. In a 2021 case, the Supreme Court explained when Courts can stop investigations. Police must investigate cognisable offences as their duty under the law. Courts should not block this unless the FIR shows no offence. Courts must use their power to stop cases carefully. The Supreme Court criticized High Courts that passed vague orders stopping "coercive steps" without explanation. It said courts must explain what "no coercive steps" means, especially if it halts investigation, giving clear reasons showing careful thought. However, the Delhi High Court clarified that "coercive measures" depend on the case context. The term is not rigid and does not always mean investigation stops. The court said such orders do not automatically suspend investigations. This guidance aims to balance police powers and court oversight, preventing improper interference in investigations. R.K. Vij, a former IPS officer, authored this summary.