ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief :-

“a. That, the respondents No 1 to 3 may kindly be directed to ensure the arrest of the accused persons named in the First Information Report and appropriate direction be given to the respondents No. 1 to 3.

b. That, necessary direction may also be issued to the respondent No.2 for taking strict action against respondent No.3 for not taking any positive steps.

c. That, in the interest of justice till the arresting of the accused person police protection to the petitioner may kindly be granted.

d. Any relief which deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the fact and circumstances of the case.

e. Cost may be awarded in the interest of justice.”

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on the complaint of the petitioner Crime No.419/2020 has been registered by Police Station Mehgaon, District Bhind for offence under section 376 D of IPC against three persons and out of which only one has been arrested and two other persons are absconding. Thus, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to arrest the accused persons and to file the charge-sheet as early as possible.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has not impleaded the persons against whom allegations have been made.

5. So far as the prayer made by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the police to arrest the accused persons is concerned, the same cannot be granted.

6. 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 t