IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 9 OF JANUARY, 2026

MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 11088 of 2015

MATADEEN GARG AND OTHERS

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Hardayesh Kumar Shukla - Advocate for the petitioners.

Shri Brijesh Kumar Tyagi - PL for the respondents/State.

ORDER steps against the accused person in accordance with law. However, no action was taken by the police thereafter. Consequently, contempt proceedings were initiated by the petitioner against the respondents in Contempt Case No. 369/2015. The said contempt petition was disposed of by this Court with the observation that no specific direction had been issued either to arrest the accused or to complete the investigation within a stipulated time; therefore, no case for initiation of contempt proceedings was made out. Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed, while liberty was reserved to file appropriate proceedings. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking issuance of directions to arrest the accused person and to conclude and complete the investigation within a stipulated period, as more than six months have elapsed and no arrest has been made by the police, despite the fact that the accused person’s application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by both the Sessions Court as well as this Court.

This petition, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS has been

filed seeking the following relief:

"So it is humbly most respectfully submitted Your Lordship may kind enough pleased to direct the superintendent of Police Gwalior as well as the police Station Indarganj to arrest the accused person in crime no.90/2015 and conclude the investigation within stipulated period to avoid inordinate delay and further kind enough to fix the time limit for the

investigating officer to complete the investigation."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the third round

of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking issuance of directions against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to conclude the investigation by taking all necessary steps, including arrest of the accused person and seizure of the fabricated decree from his possession. The said petition was allowed by this Court on 08.04.2015, directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely the Superintendent of Police, Gwalior, and the Station Officer, Police Station Indarganj, Gwalior, to take all necessary

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