ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for direction to respondents to investigate Crime No.477/2021 registered at Police Station University, District Gwalior for offence under sections 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 as well as 307 of IPC in a free and fair manner.

2. According to the petitioner, the complainant has lodged the FIR in question for the aforementioned offences. The petitioner has filed a copy of complaint made to the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior in which he had alleged that Deep Rawat, Mahendra Pawar and Ankit Tomar had committed the offence alongwith other unknown persons. It is further mentioned that the complainant had specifically informed the Investigating Officer that a gunshot was fired with an intention to kill, which hit the door. However, the offence under section 307 of IPC has not been registered.

3. Considered the contentions. They cannot be accepted for the following reasons:-

(1) This Court in exercise its power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot interfere and superwise the investigation and it is within exclusive domain of the police to investigate the matter and form its opinion.

(2) The person, against whom allegations have been made, have not been arrayed as respondents.

4. 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.

5. 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 o