Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Kusum Raja – Appellant
Versus
Station House Officer, Ishanagar – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 17997 of 2020
Decided On : 05-02-2021
Investigation - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. - [Investigation] - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C.] - The court held that it cannot supervise the investigation and giving a direction to arrest the accused and file the charge sheet would certainly amount to supervising the investigation. The completion of investigation without unnecessary delay is mandated by Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer cannot keep the investigation pending and has to conclude the investigation as early as possible and file the final report without any delay.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the court to direct the respondents to proceed with the case, investigate the case, arrest the concerning persons involved in the crime, and prosecute them in the court of law. The petitioner alleged that the police did not take any action, conduct an investigation, or arrest the suspects despite the filing of an FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it cannot supervise the investigation and giving a direction to arrest the accused and file the charge sheet would certainly amount to supervising the investigation. The completion of investigation without unnecessary delay is mandated by Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer cannot keep the investigation pending and has to conclude the investigation as early as possible and file the final report without any delay.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's plea for the court to direct the respondents to proceed with the case, investigate the case, arrest the concerning persons involved in the crime, and prosecute them in the court of law, and to provide security to the petitioner and her family till the time the accused are arrested.
Ratio Decidendi: The 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. The completion of investigation without unnecessary delay is mandated by Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer cannot keep the investigation pending and has to conclude the investigation as early as possible and file the final report without any delay.
Final Decision: The petition was finally disposed of with the direction to the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation as early as possible and to take necessary steps as required under the law. The petitioner was also given the option to make an application to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur in case of any grievance.
JUDGMENT :
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Heard through Video Conferencing
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief:-
(ii) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue necessary directions to the respondents to provide security to the petitioner and her family till the time the accused are arrested.
(iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner"
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has lodged FIR at crime No. 124/2020 at Police Station Ishanagar, District Chhatarpur but the police is not taking any action and no investigation is being conducted and the suspects are not being arrested.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
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 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 exercise
The court emphasized the statutory obligation of the police to conclude the investigation without unnecessary delay as per Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C.
The court cannot grant a direction to arrest the accused persons as it would amount to supervising the investigation. The statutory obligation under Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. for completion of invest....
The court cannot supervise the investigation and completion of investigation without unnecessary delay is mandatory.
The court cannot supervise the investigation or give a direction to arrest and file the charge sheet, and the power under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with caution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
