SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1652

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Nagendra Singh Tomar – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 1403/2026



Advocates:
Pallav Tripathi[P-1],Advocate General[R-1]

##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3741

1 WP-1403-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT GWALIOR

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 29 OF JANUARY, 2026

WRIT PETITION No. 1403 of 2026

NAGENDRA SINGH TOMAR

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

Appearance:

Shri Pallav Tripathi - Advocate for the petitioner [P-1].

Shri Mohit Shivhare Ga appearing on behalf of Advocate General[r-

1].

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. 03 may kindly be directed to take

appropriate action against the private respondents and including

their names in the crime no. and arresting them as soon as

possible.

ii. That, the Respondent no. 02 may kindly be directed to take

appropriate actions against the concerned Investigation officer.

iii. That, the Respondent authorities may kindly be directed to

conduct a free, fair and impartial investigation in the matter.

iv. That, the respondents may further be directed to decide the

representation Annexure-P/1 pending before them in a time bound

manner.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts

and circumstances of the case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on his complaint, an

FIR bearing Crime No.359/2025 was registered at Police Station Gola Ka

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR

Signing time: 30-01-2026

16:58:38

##PAGE2##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3741

2 WP-1403-2026

Mandir, District Gwalior against the Respondents No.4 to 6, 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

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: ASHISH PAWAR

Signing time: 30-01-2026

16:58:38

##PAGE3##

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3741

3 WP-1403-2026

expected to act in a mechanical manner and in all cases

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top