Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nasir Uddin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 March, 2022

Author: Pranay Verma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

WP No. 6823 of 2022
(NASIR UDDIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

Dated : 26-03-2022
Mr Rakesh Singh Bhadoria, learned counsel for the petitioner .

Mr Nitin Singh Bhati, Government Advocate for the respondents

State.

01. This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking direction to the respondents authorities to conduct the investigation in respect of

Crime No.147/20180 registered at Police Station - M.I.G. Colony, District-Indore (M.P.) for

the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 120-B and 34 of

the IPC within a stipulated time period.

02. At the outset, learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that such

direction cannot be issued particularly in view of the fact that petitioner has an alternative

remedy of filing the complaint under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. seeking direction to investigate

the offence properly under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

03. The Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan

Krishnamachari (2009) 10 SCC 488) has held as under:-

''19. The High Court, within a period of one month from the date of filing of the petition,

it is obligatory on the part of the respondent
finally disposed of the same observing that, â
2

police to conduct investigation in accordance with law, including recording of statements

from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property, perusal of various documents and filing of

chargesheet. It is also needless to state that if any account is available with the accused

persons, or any amount is in their possession and any account is maintained in a nationalised

bank, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent police to take all necessary steps to

.The Court accordingly directed
safeguard the interest of the aggrieved persons in this caseâ

the police to expedite and complete the investigation within six months from the date of

receipt of a copy of the order. The said order of the High Court is impugned in these appeals.

****

25. It is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the

courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency as to in what

manner the investigation has to proceed. In M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2

SCC 649 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 657- 58, para 14)

"14. ... Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for arrest by a police officer

without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant. The section gives discretion to the

police officer who may, without an order from a Magistrate and even without a warrant, arrest any person in the situations enumerated in that section. It is open to him, in the course

of investigation, to arrest any person who has been concerned with any cognizable offence or

against whom reasonable complaint has been made or credible information has been

received, or a reasonable suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. Obviously, he is

not expected to act in a mechanical manner and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon as

the report is lodged. In appropriate cases, after some investigation, the investigating officer

may make up his mind as to whether it is necessary to arrest the accused person. At that stage

the court has no role to play. Since the power is discretionary, a police officer is not always

bound to arrest an accused even if the allegation against him is of having committed a cognizable offence. Since an arrest is in the nature of an encroachment on the liberty of the

subject and does affect the reputation and status of the citizen, the power has to be cautiously

exercised. It depends inter alia upon the nature of the offence alleged and the type of persons

who are accused of having committed the cognizable offence. Obviously, the power has to be

exercised with caution and circumspection."

**** **********

31. The High Court, without recording any reason whatsoever, directed the police that it is

obligatory on their part to record statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property and

filing of charge sheet. It is difficult to discern as to how such directions resulting in far reaching consequences could have been issued by the High Court in exercise of its

jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court interfered with the investigation

of crime which is within the exclusive domain of the police by virtually directing the police

to investigate the case from a particular angle and take certain steps which the police

depending upon the evidence collected and host of other circumstances may or may not have attempted to take any such steps in its discretion.

32. It is not necessary that every investigation should result in arrest, seizure of the property

and ultimately in filing of the charge sheet. The police, in exercise of itsstatutory power

coupled with duty, upon investigation of a case, may find that a case is made out requiring it

to file charge sheet or may find that no case as such is made out. It needs no reiteration that

the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code conferred on the High Court has to be

exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the

test laid down in the provision itself.

33. Yet another aspect of the matter, the appellants have not been impleaded as party

respondents in the criminal petition in which the whole of the allegations are levelled against

them. The High Court never thought it fit to put the appellants on notice before issuing

appropriate directions to the police to arrest, seize the property and file charge sheet. This

Court in Dinine Retreat Centre V. State of Kerala & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 542 observed: (SCC

p.565, para 51) "51..........We are concerned with the question as to whether the High Court could have

passed a judicial order directing investigation against the appellant and its activities without

providing an opportunity of being heard to it. The case on hand is a case where the criminal

law is directed to be set in motion on the basis of the allegations made in anonymous petition

filed in the High Court. No judicial order can ever be passed by any court without providing

a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person likely to be affected by such order and

particularly when such (2008) 3 SCC 542 order results in drastic consequences of affecting

one's own reputation." (emphasis is of ours)

34. The High Court in the present case, without realizing the consequences, issued directions

in a casual and mechanical manner without hearing the appellants. The

impugned order is a nullity and liable to be set aside only on that score.

******* **********

36. The power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court either suo

motu or on an application (i) to secure the ends of justice; (ii) the High Court may make such

orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code; (iii) to prevent abuse

of the process of any Court. There is no other ground on which the High Court may exercise its inherent power.

37. In the present case, the High Court did not record any reasons whatsoever why and for

what reasons, the matter required its interference. The High Court is not expected to make

any casual observations without having any regard to the possible consequences that may

ensue from such observations. Observations coming from the higher Courts may have their

own effect of influencing the course of events and process of law. For that reason, no

uncalled for observations are to be made while disposing of the matters and that too without

hearing the persons likely to be affected. The case on hand is itself a classic illustration as to

how such observations could result in drastic and consequences of far reaching in nature. We wish to say no more.

******* *********

42. For the aforesaid reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned judgment of the

High Court. Leave granted. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. '' Thus, this Court cannot supervise the investigation and give direction to conduct the

investigation by some different agency.

Section         173(1)       of           Cr.P.C.     reads        as        under        :

                                                                (1) Every investigation

"173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. "

under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay"

04. Thus, completion of investigation without unnecessary delay is the mandate of the law. The Investigating Officer cannot keep the investigation pending and he has to come to a conclusion whether any offence is made out or not. It is obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation, as early as possible without any delay.

05. This being so, this petition is disposed of in the light of the mandatory provision of Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. and the Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible and to take necessary steps as required under the law.

06. In case of any grievance, the petitioner is free to make an application to the Dy Commissioner of Indore Zone-II which shall be looked into in accordance with law.

07. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed off.

(PRANAY VERMA) JUDGE Rashmi

RASHMI PRASHANT 2022.03.31 11:31:27 +05'30'