Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Geeta Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 March, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6419
1 MCRC-12452-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 19th OF MARCH, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12452 of 2025
SMT GEETA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Public Prosecutor for the State.
ORDER
This second application under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed
seeking the following relief (s) :-
"In the light of the facts stated herein above, it is most humbly
prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the Court may:
a) Allow the present petition and direct the respondent authorities
to carry out investigation in a free and fair manner in the FIR
bearing No.87/2025 registered at Police Kotwali Morena,
Morena.
b) Please to direct the respondent authorities to take appropriate
actions to arrest the respondent No.4-8.
c) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit."
2. First application which was registered as M.Cr.C.No.11111/2025
was withdrawn on 11.03.2025 with liberty to file afresh as certain facts were
not mentioned.
3. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that she lost her daughter
and accordingly an F.I.R. in Crime No.87/2025 has been registered at Police
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6419
2 MCRC-12452-2025
Station Kotwali Morena, District Morena for offence under Sections 80 (2),
85 and 3 (5) of BNS. The F.I.R was lodged on 14.02.2025. More than a
month has passed but accused persons have not been arrested. The applicant
in her complaint to I.G. as well as Superintendent of Police, Morena has
specifically stated that accused and some of his family members are in Police
Department and therefore, they are extending a threat that applicant would
not be able to cause any harm to them. Thus, it is submitted that police has
neither arrested the accused persons nor has taken a single step.
4. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
5. Just a month has passed after the F.I.R. was lodged. Even counsel
for applicant was not in a position to narrate as to whether statement of
applicant has been recorded or not ?
6. The Supreme Court in the case of D.Venkatasubramaniam and
others vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari and another, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6419
3 MCRC-12452-2025
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6419
4 MCRC-12452-2025
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 Divine 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 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6419
5 MCRC-12452-2025
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, it is clear that this Court cannot direct the police to arrest the
accused persons. Furthermore, if applicant is not satisfied with the manner in
which the investigation is being done then she has remedy of approaching
the concerning Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C./Section 193 of
BNS.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held as under:-
"11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a
grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under
Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of
Police under Section 154 (3) CrPC by an application in writing.
Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that
either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it
no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to
file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned
Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is
filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be
registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a
case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper
investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same
provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper
investigation."
Furthermore, this Court cannot supervise the investigation.
8 . The Supreme Court in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma Vs.
Principal Secretary and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 532 , has held as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6419
6 MCRC-12452-2025
under:-
"38. The monitoring of investigations/inquiries by the Court is
intended to ensure that proper progress takes place without directing
or channelling the mode or manner of investigation. The whole idea
is to retain public confidence in the impartial inquiry/investigation
into the alleged crime; that inquiry/investigation into every
accusation is made on a reasonable basis irrespective of the position
and status of that person and the inquiry/investigation is taken to the
logical conclusion in accordance with law. The monitoring by the
Court aims to lend credence to the inquiry/investigation being
conducted by CBI as premier investigating agency and to eliminate
any impression of bias, lack of fairness and objectivity therein.
39. However, the investigation/inquiry monitored by the court does
not mean that the court supervises such investigation/inquiry. To
supervise would mean to observe and direct the execution of a task
whereas to monitor would only mean to maintain surveillance. The
concern and interest of the court in such "Court-directed" or
"Courtmonitored" cases is that there is no undue delay in the
investigation, and the investigation is conducted in a free and fair
manner with no external interference. In such a process, the people
acquainted with facts and circumstances of the case would also have
a sense of security and they would cooperate with the investigation
given that the superior courts are seized of the matter. We find that
in some cases, the expression "Courtmonitored" has been
interchangeably used with "Court-supervised investigation" Once
the court supervises an investigation, there is hardly anything left in
the trial. Under the Code, the investigating officer is only to form an
opinion and it is for the court to ultimately try the case based on the
opinion formed by the investigating officer and see whether any
offence has been made out. If a superior court supervises the
investigation and thus facilitates the formulation of such opinion in
the form of a report under Section 173(2) of the Code, it will be
difficult if not impossible for the trial court to not be influenced or
bound by such opinion. Then trial becomes a farce. Therefore,
supervision of investigation by any court is a contradiction in terms.
The Code does not envisage such a procedure, and it cannot either.
In the rare and compelling circumstances referred to above, the
superior courts may monitor an investigation to ensure that the
investigating agency conducts the investigation in a free, fair and
time-bound manner without any external interference."
9. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:6419
7 MCRC-12452-2025
well as in view of the limited scope of jurisdiction of this Court, this Court is
of considered opinion that applicant may approach the concerning Magistrate
in case if she is not satisfied with the investigation.
10. With the aforesaid liberty, this application is dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
AK/-
