ORDER

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

The petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thereby issuing a writ/mandamus/directions to the respondents to take further action consequence of FIR as per rules and regulations and as per law within the time limit as fixed by this Hon'ble Court. To pass such other further order(s) deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. Cost may also be awarded.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was made by the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the police registered the FIR under sections 420, 34 of IPC, but the police has neither arrested the accused nor has concluded the investigation so far.

3. 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.

4. 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 exercised with caution and circumspection.”

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

31. The High Court, without recording an