Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sonu Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4978 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SONU JADON S/O SHRI JAGDEESH JADON, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, VILLAGE ARROD POLICE STATION
AGRA TEHSIL VIJAYPUR DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPLICANT
(BY SHRI VIJAY SINGH JADON - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SHEOPUR
DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. STATION HOUSE OFFICER POLICE STATION
AGRA, DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI R.K. UPADHYAY - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR STATE)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
following reliefs:
"(i) That, respondent(s) may kindly be directed to conduct
the investigation in the prompt manner of FIR bearing its
registration number 110/2023 registered at police station
Agra, District Sheopur M.P as early as possible in
accordance with law.
(ii) That, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed
to conduct free and fair investigation against the responsible
persons.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may
also kindly be granted."
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on intimation to the
police authorities, Crime No.110 of 2023 has been registered by Police Station
Agra, District Sheopur for offence under Sections 307, 34 of IPC, but no
action has been taken by the police.
3. So far as the prayer made by the petitioner for issuing a direction to
the police to arrest the accused persons and filing of charge-sheet is concerned,
the same cannot be granted. Even the suspected have not been impleaded.
4. The Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K.
Mohan Krishnamachari reported in (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, finally disposed of the
same observing that,
"it is obligatory on the part of the respondent 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
safeguard the interest of the aggrieved persons in this
case".
The Court accordingly directed 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)
" 1 4 . ... 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
p o w e r 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
its statutory 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,
t h e 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)
3 4 . 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. ''
5. Thus, this Court cannot supervise the investigation and give a direction
t o arrest the accused and file the charge sheet would certainly amount to
supervising the investigation.
6. Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. reads as under :
"173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.--
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed
without unnecessary delay."
7. 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 that 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, and to file the final report (closure report
or charge sheet) without any delay. Thus, this application is disposed of in the
light of the mandatory provision of Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. and the
Investigating Officer is expected to conclude the investigation as early as
possible and to take necessary steps as required under the law.
8. In case of any grievance, the petitioner is free to make an application
to the concerned Magistrate/concerned Superintendent of Police, under the
provisions of CrPC which shall be looked into in accordance with law.
9. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*
