High Court cannot exercise Section 482 powers to direct the arrest of accused or supervise criminal investigations.

The petitioner, Sahab Singh, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking a direction to the police to arrest absconding accused persons in Crime No. 81/2025 registered at Police Station Mau, District Bhind.

The FIR was registered under Sections 80, 85, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act based on the petitioner's information.

While a charge-sheet (challan) was filed against the husband and sister-in-law on August 20, 2025, the petitioner alleged that no effective steps were taken to arrest or file a challan against four other named accused persons: Bharat Singh Parihar, Ritesh Parihar, Kusuma Bai Parihar, and Malti Parihar.

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, can issue specific directions to the police to arrest accused persons and file a charge-sheet within a specific timeframe.

2. Whether the court can supervise or interfere with the discretionary statutory duties of the investigating agency.

The Court primarily applied Section 482 of the CrPC regarding inherent powers.

The Court applied Section 173(1) of the CrPC, which mandates that every investigation be completed without unnecessary delay.

It relied heavily on the precedent of D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari (2009) 10 SCC 488, which establishes that the High Court cannot guide the investigating agency on how to proceed or whom to arrest, as investigation falls within the exclusive domain of the police.

It further cited M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra (2003) 2 SCC 649, affirming that arrest is a discretionary power and not a mechanical requirement upon the lodging of a report.

The Court reasoned that under Section 482 CrPC, it is impermissible to supervise an investigation or issue a writ of mandamus for the arrest of specific individuals, as such actions interfere with the police's statutory obligations.

Citing D. Venkatasubramaniam, the Court noted that a person’s liberty and reputation are affected by arrest, thus the power must be exercised by the police with caution and circumspection, not at the court's direction.

The Court observed that while it cannot supervise the filing of a charge-sheet, it can direct the Investigating Officer (IO) to perform their statutory duty under Section 173 CrPC to complete the investigation expeditiously.

It emphasized that the ultimate report—whether a charge-sheet or a closure report—is for the IO to determine based on collected evidence.

However, the Court directed the IO to conclude the investigation regarding the remaining four accused persons as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with the law.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the concerned Magistrate or Superintendent of Police for further grievances as per the CrPC.

The petition was disposed of with these observations.