[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Chandra Prakash Singh Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 February, 2026
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak, Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
1 WA-370-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 9 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 370 of 2026
CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH CHAUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.P.S.Raghuvanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Vijay Kumar Jha - Advocate
for the appellant.
Shri Ankur Mody - Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State.
Shri Neeraj Dhamaniya - Advocate for respondent No.3.
ORDER
Per: Justice Anand Pathak
With consent, heard finally.
2. The instant appeal under Section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha
Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been
preferred by appellant (respondent No.2 in the writ petition) assailing the
order dated 30.01.2026 passed by learned Writ Court in Writ Petition
No.50649/2025; whereby, learned Writ Court disposed of the writ petition
filed by the petitioner (respondent No.3 herein) with certain directions
including initiation of disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.2
(appellant herein) in accordance with law for his conduct.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner and husband of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
2 WA-370-2026
private respondent (respondent No.4 herein); namely Surendra Kapur alias
Kake Sardar were in relationship for the last 6 years. When petitioner came
to know about his marriage with private respondent, they ended their
relationship. Thereafter, on 27.09.2025, when petitioner opened her
Instragram account she saw that private respondent had posted objectionable
photos of petitioner and Surendra Kapur on her Insta ID. When petitioner
called private respondent she threatened the petitioner that she is having more
photos which she would viral on social media. She also abused petitioner.
Thereafter, the post was deleted by private respondent. On 08.10.2025
petitioner's friend sent her obscene photo and told her that the same is going
viral. When the petitioner checked, she found that private respondent again
posted same photo on her Insta ID. Thereafter, petitioner filed a written
complaint on which Crime No.558/2025 was registered against private
respondent.
4. After registration of aforesaid case, private respondent filed
anticipatory bail application which was dismissed by the trial Court.
Thereafter, she filed M.Cr.C.No.535906/2025 this Court seeking anticipatory
bail, which was also dismissed. However, the police authorities particularly
SHO, P.S. Guna (appellant herein) conspired with private respondent and did
not arrest her. They granted her protection from arrest and granted bail by
issuing notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C.
5. Aggrieved by such action of police authorities, petitioner filed
W.P.No.50649/2025 for fair investigation in the matter, action against
respondent No.4 so also transfer of investigation in FIR No.558/2025 to an
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
3 WA-370-2026
independent investigating agency like CBI/CID/ Crime Branch.
6. Learned Writ Court vide order dt.30.01.2026 disposed of the writ
petition with direction to the competent authority to forthwith initiate
departmental disciplinary proceedings against respondent No.2 (appellant
herein) in accordance with law. It was also directed to place respondent No.2
under suspension with immediate effect pending conclusion of the
departmental inquiry so as to ensure a fair, free and uninfluenced inquiry.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Writ
Court, the present appellant filed the instant appeal.
8. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for appellant that in
the writ petition, he was not made party in person, however, he was
impleaded by designation. In absence of impleadment of appellant as party
respondent, he was not in a position to submit his reply to the pleadings of
writ petition. When learned Writ Court sought his explanation vide order
dt.22.1.2026, appellant filed explanation in the form of return. It is further
submitted that the appellant acted as per the judgment of Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar AIR 2014 SC 2756 . Since the mobile used in the crime was
seized, there was nothing for further interrogation or seizer. The accused also
cooperated in the investigation, therefore, the arrest of the accused was not
made. Learned senior counsel also submits that the findings of the learned
Writ Court regarding conduct of the appellant cause serious prejudice to the
appellant and learned Writ Court held guilty to the appellant and even
punished him as order of suspension has already been issued by the
concerning Superintendent of Police.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
4 WA-370-2026
9. Learned counsel also raised the issue regarding maintainability of
Writ Appeal. As submitted, Writ Appeal is maintainable. He relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab
(2022) 13 SCC 462. He referred para 16 of the aforesaid judgment, which
reads as under :-
If a clear-cut distinction is accepted that while dealing
with a writ petition based on the ground of delay in
disposal of mercy petition or application for
commutation, the Court does not and will not enter into
the merits of the matter, the proceedings so initiated by
way of writ petition are not connected with the earlier
determination of guilt in regular proceedings. The
nature of such proceedings by way of a writ petition
would be independent, original and founded on
circumstances which occurred after the guilt stood
determined by the criminal courts; and, therefore, such
proceedings will certainly be one where remedy by way
of an intra-court appeal, if the Rules concerned of
letters patent so permit, would be maintainable.
10. It is further submitted by the learned Senior counsel that appellant
acted in terms of provisions of Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. so also as per the
directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) . As
per judgment of Arnesh Kumar (supra), if the investigation officer fails to
make compliance of direction issued in para 14 of the judgment and does not
issue notice under Section 41-A to the accused, he will be liable for
disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that learned Writ Court
erred in passing the impugned order. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the
impugned order passed by learned Writ Court.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer
on the ground of maintainability of present. appeal. It is submitted that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
5 WA-370-2026
although writ petition was preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution
but the relief was akin to the relief which is claimed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., therefore, against the said order, writ appeal is not maintainable.
12. Heard the learned counsel for parties at length and perused the
record.
1 3 . First and foremost question for consideration is regarding
maintainability of this appeal.
14. Recently, Division Bench of this Court vide order dt.19.01.2026
passed in Writ Appeal No.137 of 2026 (Sanjay Singh Jadon v. State of M.P.
and others) discussed the maintainability of such writ appeals arising out of
criminal jurisdiction. Said judgment of Division Bench of this Court is based
upon the case of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of
Haryana (2017) 5 SCC 533 and CIT Vs. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, AIR 1965
SC 1818.
15. In the present case, Writ Petition No.50649/2025 was filed before
learned Writ Court seeking following reliefs :-
a) Writ of mandamus to call for the entire records with
relate to the FIR and Status Report.
b) Call the IO to submit in written the grounds as to
why he has issued pre arrest protection by giving notice
under section 41A of CRPC.
c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction, directing the transfer of
investigation in FIR No. 558/2025 registered at Police
Station P. Kotwali Guna, District Guna, Madhya
Pradesh, under Section 79, 351(1) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 67(A) of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, to an independent
investigating agency such as the CBI/CID, crime
Branch or any other independent government agency or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
6 WA-370-2026
higher police official not below the rank of
Superintendent of Police, from a different district, to
ensure a fair, impartial, and expeditious investigation.
d) Pass an appropriate writ or order or direction,
directing the respondents to conduct a fair and unbiased
investigation and take further actions for a fair, unbiased
and expeditious investigation, without being influenced
by any extraneous pressure.
e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction, directing the respondent No. 1
to immediately take appropriate legal action against the
private respondent in accordance with the law,
particularly in light of the dismissal of his anticipatory
bail applications by the learned Trial Court and this
Hon'ble Court, and to ensure his immediate
apprehension.
f) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order, or direction, directing an inquiry into
the conduct of the police officials of Police Station P.S.
Kotwali Guna, District Guna, Madhya Pradesh, who
have acted in collusion with the private respondent and
in defiance of judicial orders, and to take appropriate
disciplinary action against them.
(g) The Respondent no. 2/Investigating officer be
saddled with the exemplary cost for exceeding his
jurisdiction.
(h) That, any other just and proper relief warranting
under the facts and circumstances of the case be also
given to the Petitioner, including cost, in the ends of
justice.
16. From the nature of relief, it appears that writ of mandamus was
sought regarding transfer of investigation to independent agency like
CBI/CID/Crime Branch and to take appropriate action against erring officers.
17. From nature of relief, it appears that learned writ court exercised
the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Cumulatively,
writ appeal appears to be maintainable.
18. So far as interference on merits is concerned, although petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
7 WA-370-2026
arrayed the present appellant by designation as SHO Police Station, Guna
Kotwali, District Guna. However, in the proceeding explanation was sought
and present appellant (respondent No.2 in the writ petition) furnished his
explanation, wherein he explained the reason for letting go the accused
without arresting him for investigation. Therefore, opportunity of hearing
was given to appellant.
19. Contention of appellant was that he proceeded as per judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) . Matter was in respect
of offence under Section 79, 351 (3) of BNS and Section 67 (A) of I.T.Act.
Allegations were serious and to some extent ugly in nature.
20. Learned Writ Court considered the conduct of appellant as
Investigating Officer in the following manner :-
The conduct of respondent No.2 in the present
matter reflects a disturbing and alarming disregard for
the rule of law, the authority of the Court, and the basic
canons of fair investigation. Despite rejection of
anticipatory bail of respondent No.3 by the learned
Trial Court as well as by this Court, the investigating
agency deliberately refrained from arresting the accused
and instead issued a notice under Section 41A of the
Cr.P.C., thereby virtually granting protection from
arrest to the accused and frustrating the spirit of the
judicial orders. The explanation furnished by respondent
No.2 seeks to justify such conduct on the basis of the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
circular issued by the Police Headquarters. This
explanation, however, is wholly unsatisfactory and
unacceptable.
Where the competent courts have already declined
anticipatory bail after considering the gravity of the
allegations and material on record, the investigating
agency is not expected to nullify the effect of such
judicial orders by resorting to Section 41A of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
8 WA-370-2026
Cr.P.C. mechanically. The conduct of respondent No.2
in issuing notice under Section 41A after rejection of
anticipatory bail, without recording any compelling
reasons justifying such deviation, reflects a blatant
disregard for judicial orders and raises a serious
apprehension of favoritism and extraneous influence.
The subsequent filing of the charge-sheet and the
fact that the accused was later remanded to custody and
granted regular bail do not wash away the illegality
committed at the stage of investigation. An act which is
illegal at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent
events. The conduct of respondent No.2, as borne out
from the record, prima facie indicates deliberate misuse
of authority, dereliction of duty and conduct
unbecoming of a police officer, which has the effect of
undermining public confidence in the criminal justice
system.
This Court cannot remain a silent spectator to such
acts. Maintenance of discipline, integrity and
accountability in the police force is essential for
preservation of the rule of law. When a police officer
acts in a manner which appears to defeat the orders of
the Court and shield an accused, the matter assumes
grave seriousness and warrants immediate corrective
and disciplinary action.
Accordingly, this Court directs the Competent
Authority to forthwith initiate departmental disciplinary
proceedings against respondent No.2 in accordance
with law for his aforesaid conduct. The Competent
Authority shall also place respondent No.2 under
suspension with immediate effect pending conclusion of
the departmental inquiry, so as to ensure a fair, free and
uninfluenced inquiry.
It is further directed that the disciplinary authority
shall appoint an officer not below the rank of
Superintendent of Police as the Inquiry Officer to
conduct the inquiry and shall ensure that the
proceedings are concluded in a time bound manner. A
status report regarding compliance of this order and
progress of the inquiry shall be placed before this Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
9 WA-370-2026
within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
21. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that in
giving fact situation, learned Writ Court did not err in passing such order
exercising jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
His role does not evoke confidence and credence prima facie. It is often seen
that Investigating Officers are becoming casual and negligent to their
performance of duties as Investigation Officer. They are more interested in
law and order/Bandobast or other related matters. They show
casualness/negligence towards Investigation of Crime. This renders a
common man in vulnerable position because unless investigation is held
properly accused would not get conviction and those victims would suffer
Secondary and Tertiary Victimization.
22. Therefore, in given facts and circumstances of the case, no scope
of interference exists so far as directions given by the learned Writ Court are
concerned. Yes, it is true that delinquent (present appellant) must also get fair
opportunity of hearing and fair opportunity to present his case and to plead
innocence. It is also true that disciplinary authority/competent authority has
to look into the allegations and evidence in inquiry objectively and thereafter
ensure consequential follow up action.
23. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is hereby
clarified that competent authority shall proceed against the erring officer
(present appellant) without being influenced by any observations by learned
Writ Court and/or by this Court and would proceed in accordance with law
and service jurisprudence. It is further expected that inquiry shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5333
10 WA-370-2026
conducted at an expeditious note. No further indulgence can be shown in the
given facts and circumstances of the case. Order of learned Writ Court stands
affirmed.
24. Writ Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.
(ANAND PATHAK) (HIRDESH)
JUDGE JUDGE
SP
