The Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected a petition requesting its intervention in the investigation of a criminal case.

The bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia underscored that courts do not have the authority to oversee police investigations or mandate the arrest of accused individuals, clarifying that these responsibilities rest solely with the investigating authorities.

The case stemmed from a writ petition filed by Jyotsna Maity, who alleged that the police had not taken adequate action on her complaint. The FIR registered against the accused included charges of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and forgery.

However, Jyotsna Maity stated that the police had neither arrested the accused nor completed the investigation. She requested the court to review the police case diary and direct the agency to advance with the probe.

In his judgment, Justice Ahluwalia referenced the landmark Supreme Court case of D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari, which established that courts cannot intervene in the police’s discretion regarding investigations, including decisions on arrests and charge sheets.

“Court cannot supervise the investigation and giving a direction to arrest the accused and file the charge sheet would certainly amount to supervising the investigation”.

The court highlighted that Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) authorizes police officers to make arrests without a warrant under certain conditions. It explained that the decision to arrest hinges on the nature of the offense, the evidence gathered, and the discretion of the investigating officer.

Justice Ahluwalia emphasized that courts can only intervene in exceptional cases where there is clear evidence of deliberate attempts to obstruct justice or misuse of power by the police.

However, the court acknowledged the petitioner's right to a timely investigation. It directed the police to complete the investigation as swiftly as possible under Section 173(1) of the CrPC, which requires investigations to be concluded without undue delay. The court also clarified that the petitioner could appeal to the Superintendent of Police if she believed the investigation was not being conducted fairly.

“Completion of investigation without unnecessary delay is the mandate of the law. The Investigating Officer cannot keep the investigation pending and he has to come to a conclusion that whether any offence is made out or not? It is obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation, as early as possible, and to file the final report (Closure report or charge sheet) without any delay.”

Case Title: Smt. Jyotsna Maity Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Citation: W.P. No.20165/2024