It is quite vital to note that while ruling on a significant legal point pertaining to the quashing of First Information Report (FIR), the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Abhishek Pandey vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors in Writ Petition No. 14638 of 2024 that was pronounced as recently as on July 8, 2024 has minced just no words to state unequivocally that an FIR cannot be quashed on the grounds that a preliminary inquiry into the correctness of the allegations was not heard by the police.
We need to note that a petition had been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the impugned FIR that had been registered against a ‘self-proclaimed’ student leader of a school (petitioner). We must also note that the FIR laid bare the allegations in detail which included forced entry and vandalism at a School by the petitioner and subsequent abuse and obstruction of police officers by the petitioner. It would be worthwhile to note that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia maintained firmly that:
Holding of a preliminary inquiry is desirable and the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of non-holding of preliminary inquiry. So the High Court thus dismissed the petition.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
- Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to 4 to conduct the fair, impartial and proper enquiry into the matter of Petitioner by independent agency and take cognizance against the responsible erring police officers.
- Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned FIR dated 07.04.2024 registered by the Respondent No.6 in FIR No.178/2024 vide Annexure P/5 and further be pleased to quash impugned FIR dated 13.04.2024 registered by the Respondent No.7 in FIR No.183/2024 vide Annexure P/9.
- Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.
Needless to say, the Bench states in para 2 that:
The photocopy of case diary of Crime No.178/2024, registered at Police Station Bhedaghat, District Jabalpur and Crime No.183/2024, registered at Police Station Lordganj, District Jabalpur are available.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 while elaborating on the petitioner version that:
It is submitted by the petitioner that being a student leader, he went to British School, Kudan. However, the Principal of British School lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioner as well as Aryan Tiwari and his friends forcibly entered inside the school and started alleging that why the school is functioning and accordingly they started abusing the staff in the name of mother and sister.
When the Principal of the school objected to it, then the petitioner and his friend Aryan as well as their colleagues started damaging chair, tables, monitor etc. and accordingly caused damages to the school property and also threatened that in case if they come out, then they would be killed. Accordingly, on the said complaint, FIR No.178/2024 has been registered in Police Station, Bhedaghat, District Jabalpur.
Similarly, FIR No.183/2024 has been registered at Police Station Lordganj, District Jabalpur on the report of the police officers on the allegations that the petitioner and Aryan Betia were wanted in Crime No.178/2024 and accordingly, they went to the house of the petitioner at 6:00 a.m. and informed him that he is required in a non-bailable offence registered in Crime No.178/2024, then the petitioner started abusing the police party and challenged that he would not open the gate of the house and the police party must leave the place and also alleged that why the police has come to his house.
He was informed by the police party that a non-bailable offence has been registered against him and in case if the petitioner does not cooperate with the investigation then they will be required to arrest him and also insisted that he should open the gate of the house. The accused refused to open the gate of the house and challenged that complainant may do whatever he wants. The entire incident was videographed by a Constable No.1977 Ritik.
Accordingly, CSP, Bargi was informed about the incident. Under an apprehension that the petitioner may abscond, the police party entered inside the house of the petitioner through the house of his neighbourers and again asked the petitioner to accompany them, then he started abusing the police party by using filthy language in the name of their mother and sister and also started scuffling with them and also abused as to why they have come and accordingly he tried to run away.
The police party tried to arrest him and accordingly, the petitioner, his uncle and aunty not only abused the Sub-Inspector Prashant Maneshwar, Constable Hari Singh Rajput, Constable Harish Daheriya, Head Constable Ram Prakash Gurjar in the name of mother and sister and also assaulted them by fists and blows. In the meanwhile, one ASI, posted in Police Station, Lordganj also reached on the spot. When the petitioner was tried to be arrested, then he continued to abuse them filthily and also had a scuffle with the complainant and with great difficulty the petitioner was arrested.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 10 that:
This Court by order dated 14.3.2024 passed in M.Cr.C.No.9662/2022 Avijit Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another (Principal Seat) has held as under :-
Whether the FIR is bad on account of not holding a preliminary inquiry.
Thus, it is clear that in given set of circumstances preliminary inquiry may be desirable but non-holding a preliminary inquiry will not vitiate the FIR. Accordingly, the FIR lodged against the applicant cannot be quashed on the ground that preliminary inquiry was not conducted.
Do also note, the Bench notes in para 11 that:
Thus, the first contention of the petitioner that before registering an offence, a preliminary inquiry into the correctness of the allegations should have been made is per se misconceived and is hereby rejected.
Most significantly, while citing a recent and relevant case law, the Bench enunciates in para 13 that:
The Supreme Court in the case of SBI Vs. Rajesh Agrawal reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1 has held as under :
37. While the borrowers argue that the actions of banks in classifying borrower accounts as fraud according to the procedure laid down under the Master Directions on Frauds is in violation of the principles of natural justice, RBI and lender banks argue that these principles cannot be applied at the stage of reporting a criminal offence to investigating agencies. At the outset, we clarify that principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence, which is a consistent position of law adopted by this Court.
38. In Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that that providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused in every criminal case before taking any action against them would frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation lifeless, absurd, and self-defeating. Again, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P. has reiterated that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not provide for right of hearing before the registration of an FIR.
Thus, it is clear that the suspect/accused has no right of pre-audience before registration of FIR.
As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 14 that:
Accordingly, the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before the registration of offence. Even otherwise, the petitioner has also admitted that on 5.4.2024 he had gone to the school in the capacity of a student leader. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to address this Court as to whether a person claiming himself to be a student leader can enter inside the school or not?
Quite significantly, the Bench then points out in para 15 that:
The petitioner could not point out any law by which a self-proclaimed student leader can be permitted to enter inside a school unauthorizedly.
Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding and directing in para 17 that:
As no case is made out warranting interference, therefore, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
In sum, we thus see that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has made it indubitably clear that FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of non-holding of preliminary inquiry into allegations. We thus see that the petitioner fails to make a compelling case to warrant interference by the court and so his petition fails and is thus dismissed. No denying!
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
