[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shivam Singh Tomar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 5 January, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:227
1 MCRC-58602-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 5 th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 58602 of 2025
SHIVAM SINGH TOMAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Singh Kushwah - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Kalpana Parmar - PP for the respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
following relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased
to allow this Petition and may kindly be directed to police authorities to arrest the
accused person / respondent No. 4 & 5 in the crime No. 194/2024 registered at
Police Station Dehat, Distt. Bhind, in the interest of justice."
2. So far as the prayer made by the petitioner in the relief clause, the
same cannot be granted.
3. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:227
2 MCRC-58602-2025
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
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:227
3 MCRC-58602-2025
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."
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 file the charge sheet would certainly amount to supervising the
investigation.
5. However, Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. provides and reads as under :
"173. 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, and to file the final report
(closure report or charge sheet) without any delay. Thus, this application is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:227
4 MCRC-58602-2025
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 as early as possible and to take necessary steps as required
under the law.
7. In case of any grievance, the petitioner is free to make an
application to the concerned Magistrate/concerned Superintendent of Police,
under the provisions of CrPC which shall be looked into in accordance with
law.
8. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
neetu
