Gajendra Singh Rajput vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

S.A.Dharmadhikari, J

In pursuance of the directions issued by the Apex Court and guidelines issued by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the wake of COVID-19

outbreak , the matter was taken up through video conferencing while adhering to the norms of social distancing prescribed by the Government.

I.A. No. 23477/2020, an application for urgent hearing is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. petitioner seeks direction to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to arrest the respondent No. 4 and shall also file a

charge sheet before the trial below.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has lodged an FIR bearing crime No. 166/2019 at police station Gwalior, District

Gwalior (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC. It is submitted that police has neither arrested the accused person nor has

completed the investigation so far. A prayer is made for issuance of directions to the police authorities to arrest the said accused person and also

complete the investigation as early as possible.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that such directions cannot be given in the light of Apex Court's Judgment delivered in the case of D.

Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488, wherein the Apex Court 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 caseâ€​.

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.

****

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.â€​

**** **********

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.

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.

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 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.

(emphasis is of ours)

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.

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.

******* *********

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. ''

In view of above, this Court cannot supervise the investigation and give a direction to arrest the accused as well as to file the charge sheet, which

would certainly amount to supervising the investigation. However as per section 173 of Cr.P.C. the investigation is to be completed without

unnecessary delay. The Investigating Officer cannot keep the investigation pending.

In case of any grievances, the petitioner is free to make an application to the Superintendent of Police, District Gwalior who shall look into the matter

in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

With aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of.