IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 11 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 37562 of 2024 RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sandeep Singh Bhadauria - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

ORDER This petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS has been filed seeking the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and the respondent police may kindly be directed to comply with the provisions of section 173 of CRPC/193 of BNSS and thereby to file report against remaining accused persons before the competent court or alternatively to take appropriate action in this regard, within any reasonable time."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the information furnished by the petitioner, Crime No. 108/2019 was registered at Police Station Daboh, District Bhind, for offences punishable under Sections 40, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet dated 21.03.2020 was filed against certain accused persons, while the investigation was kept pending against the remaining accused persons in terms of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. However, despite the lapse of a considerable period of nearly four and a half years, no further steps have been taken by the respondent- police. Neither any supplementary charge-sheet has been filed against the remaining accused persons, nor any other action has been initiated against them.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State submits that steps are being taken in the matter. However, he has not raised any objection, if any direction is issued in this regard.

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 ap