Accused Has No Right Of Pre-Audience Before Registration Of An FIR: Madhya Pradesh High Court

A bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Abhishek Pandey challenging two FIRs lodged against him on the allegations of forcibly entering the school and abusing the staff.

The petitioner-accused contended that the police must have conducted a preliminary inquiry before registering the offence and that the petitioner was entitled to a hearing before the offence was registered.

At the outset, the Court relied upon a 2014 ruling of the Top Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP to hold that holding a preliminary inquiry is desirable and that the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of non-holding a preliminary inquiry.

The Court further referred to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Anr. Vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. Vijayalakshmi and Anr. LL 2021 SC 551, wherein it was held that a preliminary enquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation in cases of corruption is not mandatory.

In the 2021 case, the Supreme Court, while Referring to various decisions, including that of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari (supra), observed that they do not mandate that a Preliminary Enquiry must be conducted before the registration of an FIR in corruption cases.

It said an FIR will not stand vitiated because a Preliminary inquiry has not been conducted.

The court had added that the purpose of Lalita Kumari (supra), noting that a Preliminary Enquiry is valuable in corruption cases, was not to vest a right in the accused but to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of law in order to target public servants.

Accordingly, the High Court said that the petitioner's first contention 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.

Even otherwise, the Court said that the petitioner had admitted that on the day of the alleged incident, he had gone to the school in the capacity of a student leader.

In light of his admission, when the Court asked him to explain whether a self-proclaimed student leader has the right to enter a school, the petitioner was unable to cite any law that permits unauthorized entry into a school by such an individual.

Thus, his plea was rejected.

Case title - Abhishek Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 137

Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder