Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 September, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28462
1 WP-36537-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 26th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 36537 of 2025
MAHESH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aaditya Muichhala - Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. Amit Bhatia - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has
beenfiled seeking following relief(s):-
"a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents to
conduct a fair, impartial and time-bound investigation in Crime
No.50/2024 under the supervision of a senior officer not below the
rank of Additional DCP;
b) Issue directions to delete/remove the name of the Petitioner
from FIR in Crime No. 50/2024,
c) Initiate or direct initiation of departmental enquiry against erring
police officers for not acting on the Petitioner's complaints dated |
01/03/2024, 05/03/2024, 03/12/2024 and 04/08/2025;
d) Direct the Respondents to ensure that the Petitioner is no harassed
or surhmoned unnecessarily 1in relation to the said FIR;
e) Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) as deemed fit and proper
in the interest of justice."
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that a complaint was
made by the petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, Police
registered FIR under Sections 325, 323, 504, 34 of IPC but Police has
not concluded the investigation so far.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28462
2 WP-36537-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28462
3 WP-36537-2025
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28462
4 WP-36537-2025
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 Court6 W.P. No.20165/2024 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 BNNS reads as under :
Section 193(1) 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28462
5 WP-36537-2025
and to file the final report (Closure report or charge sheet) without any
delay.
7. Thus, this application is disposed of in the light of the
mandatory provision of Section 193(1) of BNSS and the Investigating
Officer is directed to conclude the investigation as early as possible and
to take necessary steps as required under the law within a period of 60
days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
8. In case of any grievance, petitioner is free to make an
application to the Superintendent of Police, Indore which shall be looked
into in accordance with law.
9. With aforesaid observations, petition is finally disposed of
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
