Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4789
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRANAY VERMA, J
SHOBHA YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. THROUGH HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 21290 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Gourav Shrivastava
For the Respondents: Shri Raghav Shrivastava
Judicial interference in police investigations without due process violates procedural fairness and unlawful.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition for investigation - The petitioner seeks investigation into FIR No.301/2018 concerning alleged negligence resulting in harm, asserting inaction by police authorities. The Court reiterated the obligation of police to investigate fairly and complete investigations without undue delay. (Paras 7, 25, 42)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - The court discussed the limits of its discretionary powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing why the police should retain discretion in investigations and not follow direct judicial interference. The High Court's direction without hearing affected parties was deemed unlawful. (Paras 31, 33, 37)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged that the police failed to conclude investigation into FIR No.301/2018 under Section 304-A IPC concerning a crime of negligence. The Supreme Court precedent indicated the court’s reluctance to direct police conduct in investigations.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's interference in the police investigation was ruled inappropriate, warranting the appeals to be allowed. The Investigating Officer was directed to conclude the investigation within three months.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the High Court could compel police actions without due process and hear affected parties first.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reinforced the necessity of lawful and fair investigations by police while maintaining the required legal procedural safeguards against judicial overreach.
Result: The appeals are allowed and the High Court's order is set aside.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA nd ON THE 22 OF JULY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 21290 of 2019 SHOBHA YADAV Versus STATE OF M.P. THROUGH HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri Gourav Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Raghav Shrivastava appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"7.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may please to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus directing Respondents No. 1 to 4 police authorities to investigate the crime No.301/2018 registered at P.S. Bank Note Press Dewas, fairly, expeditiously and in a manner duly prescribed by law and to take action against respondent No.6 hospital.
7.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may please to call for relevant records of the crime No.301/2018 registered at P.S. Bank Note Press Dewas.
7.3 That, this Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with cost.
7.4. That, this Hon'ble Court may further pleased to grant any other relief, if deem fits in present facts and circumstances."
02. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint was made by the petitioner on the basis of which the Police registered FIR No.301/2018 at Police Station Bank Note Press, Dewas under Section 304-A of the IPC but the Police has not concluded the investigation as yet in accordance with law and has not taken action against the accused persons.
03. The Supreme Court in the case of D. Venkatasubramaniam and others Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHILPA vs. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari and another 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 nationalized 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 a
