Shyam Singh Karmawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2025 Latest Caselaw 7124 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shyam Singh Karmawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke

           NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12896




                                                                            1                                          WP-21104-2025
                              IN       THE          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                          AT GWALIOR
                                                         BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                                                            ON THE 26th OF JUNE, 2025
                                                      WRIT PETITION No. 21104 of 2025
                                                SHYAM SINGH KARMAWAT
                                                         Versus
                                        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
                          Appearance:
                          Shri Manvardhan Singh Tomar - Advocate for the petitioner.
                          Shri M.S. Jadon - GA for the respondents/State.

                                                                                ORDER

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed seeking following reliefs:-

"(a) That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to

complete the investigation in the stipulated time period or to take further action in consequence of

FIR as per section 193(1) of CrPC.

(b) That, the direction may kindly be given to the respondents to file the charge sheet before the

concerned court.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case

same may kindly be granted to the petitioner."

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents No.01 to 06 in not completing the investigating of Crime No. 0051/2024 registered at P.S Purani Chavni, Motijheel, District -Gwalior U/s 294,323, 506, 34 of IPC and 3(1)(D),3(1)(S), 3(1)(), of SC & ST Act, which was registered against the respondents No.7 to 10 and other unknown persons. However, till today, the investigation has not been completed. He

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12896

2 WP-21104-2025 prays for issuance of necessary directions to conclude the investigation at the earliest.

3. Learned Government Advocate submits that investigation is going on according to law. However, he has not raised any objection, if any direction is issued.

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.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12896

3 WP-21104-2025 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12896

4 WP-21104-2025 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 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 giving a direction to file charge-sheet would certainly amount to supervising the investigation.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12896

5 WP-21104-2025 "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, as early as possible, and to file the final report (closure report or charge sheet) without any delay.

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 in Crime No. 0051/2024 registered at P.S Purani Chhavni, Motijheel, District -Gwalior U/s 294,323, 506, 34 of IPC and 3(1)(D),3(1)(S), 3(1)(), of SC & ST Act 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. In case of any grievance, the petitioner is free to make an application to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior which shall be looked into in accordance with law.

10. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE

neetu