Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivam Rawat vs Superintendent Of Police Gwalior on 26 August, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19396
1 MCRC-44609-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 26 th OF AUGUST, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44609 of 2024
SHIVAM RAWAT
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE GWALIOR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Raj Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah - Public Public Prosecutor for
respondent/State.
Shri Pawan Pathak - Advocate for respondent [R-3].
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking following
relief:
"4.1 That, it is prayed that the petition filed by the petitioner may kindly
allowed and respondent No-1 and respondent no-2 may kindly be direct
to completed the investigation on the part of Respondent no-3 and filed
charge-sheet before the concerning Court without any delay within 15
days.
4.2 That, Other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."
2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on intimation to the
police authorities, Crime No.787 of 2023 has been registered by Police Station
Thatipur, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B,
34 of IPC and Section 66D/74 of I.T. Act, but charge-sheet in the matter has not
yet been filed by the Police.
3. The Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K.
Mohan Krishnamachari reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488 has held as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19396
2 MCRC-44609-2024
''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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19396
3 MCRC-44609-2024
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)
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. ''
4. It is a settled law that this Court cannot supervise the investigation and
give a direction to file charge sheet which would certainly amount to supervising
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:19396
4 MCRC-44609-2024
the investigation.
5. 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."
6. 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.
7. 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 Cr.P.C. which shall be looked into in accordance with law.
8. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha
