Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramchandra Shivhare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 July, 2025
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16002
1 WP-27130-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 30th OF JULY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 27130 of 2025
RAMCHANDRA SHIVHARE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Dy. GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
directed seeking following reliefs:-
"A. That, in the facts and circumstance of the case direction may kindly be issued to the
respondent Collector for taking decision in confiscating proceeding pending arising out of
the show cause notice at Annexure-P/1 within stipulated time in the interest of justice.
B-That other relief which is deems fit may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the
respondent no. 2 in not taking any decision in confiscation proceedings
pending before him since 24.02.2025 due to which the petitioner is deprived
from using the seized fertilizer for which he is suffering a huge loss, as due
to pendency of confiscation proceeding the seized fertilizer of the petitioner
is being perished and same will be destroyed within 2 to 3 months. Therefore
for seeking direction for disposal of the confiscation proceeding petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16002
2 WP-27130-2025
has filed this petition.
3. Learned Government Advocate submits that steps are being taken in
the matter. However, he has not raised any objection, if any direction is
issued in this regard.
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)
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16002
3 WP-27130-2025
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 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, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16002
4 WP-27130-2025
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 canbe exercised by the High Court either suo motu
oron 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 any
direction with regard to confiscation proceedings, which would certainly
amount to supervising the investigation in the matter of confiscation
proceedings.
6. Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. reads as under :
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:16002
5 WP-27130-2025
"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 with regard to confiscation proceedings.
8. Thus, 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
expected to conclude the investigation with regard to confiscation
proceedings as early as possible and to take necessary steps as required
under the law and even thereafter, the grievance is not redressed the
Petitioner may approach Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
9. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
