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

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 36866 of 2025 MANISH VERMA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Padam Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Samar Ghuraiya - DGA for the respondents/State.

ORDER The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

(i) That, the respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to ensure and hold the fair investigation and file challan before the competent court for concluding the trial in the matter.

(ii) That, respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to take appropriate action against the respondent no.4 to 6 for delaying the investigation giving benefit to respondent no.7 and remove them from enquiring the matter of petitioner.

(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on her complaint, an FIR dated 08.07.2024 bearing crime No.411/2024 was registered at Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior against the Respondent No.7, but despite registration of the FIR, no effective steps have been taken by the police. 3. Learned counsel for the 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 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 li