Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30166
1 WP-33784-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 33784 of 2025
VIRENDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ravi, Advocate appeared for petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava , Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
" a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
directing the Investigation Officer to conduct a fair, speedy and
impartial investigation in accordance with the law and
immediately seized ~ the medical papers of the injured and also
record the statement of the eye witnesses and injured persons.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and transfer the
investigation of crime no. 16/2025 to any other nearby police
station for fair investigation because the police Kannod is
vestigate the matter of cross case registered against the petitioner
and others at crime no. 13/2025.
c) Issue an inappropriate direction to investigation officer to arrest
the accused persons in crime no. 16/2025.
d) Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint
has been filed before the concerned Police Station in respect of the alleged
incident. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police has registered
the FIR under Sections 296, 115(2), 351 (2) and 3 (5) of BNS. It is submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30166
2 WP-33784-2025
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the FIR having been
registered on 11.01.2025 i.e. almost ten months ago, no investigation in the
matter is being done and the final report has not been filed. The matter is not
being investigated by respondents properly in a fair and impartial manner.
3. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30166
3 WP-33784-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30166
4 WP-33784-2025
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."
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. Thus, this Court cannot supervise the investigation and giving a
direction to arrest the accused and file the charge sheet would certainly
amount to supervising the investigation.
5. Section 193(1) of BNSS reads as under:-
193. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.
( 1 ) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed
without unnecessary delay.
6. Thus, this petition is disposed of in the light of the mandatory
provisions of Section 193(1) of BNSS, 2023. and the Investigating Officer is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:30166
5 WP-33784-2025
directed to conclude the investigation and to take necessary steps as required
under the law as early as possible preferably within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. He is also directed to
ensure that investigation is done in the matter impartially and in a fair and
proper manner.
7. In case of any grievance, petitioner is free to make an application to
the Superintendent of Police, Dewas which shall be looked into in
accordance with law.
8. With aforesaid observations, petition is finally disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
VD
