FIR Cannot Be Quashed On The Ground Of Non-Holding Of Preliminary Inquiry Into Allegations: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed 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.
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed to quash the impugned FIR registered against a ‘self-proclaimed’ student leader of a school (petitioner). The FIR detailed allegations including forced entry and vandalism at a School by the petitioner and subsequent abuse and obstruction of police officers by the petitioner.
A Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “Holding of a preliminary inquiry is desirable and the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground of non-holding of preliminary inquiry.”
The petitioner appeared in person, while Dy. GA Swati Aseem George represented the respondent.
The petitioner argued that the police were required to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registration of the offence and claimed that he was entitled to a hearing. The High Court had to determine whether an FIR could be quashed on the ground of non-holding of preliminary inquiry or not.
The Court clarified that the contention of the petitioner that before registering an offence, a preliminary inquiry into the correctness of the allegations should have been made, was per se “misconceived” and was rejected.
The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in SBI v. Rajesh Agrawal (2023) wherein it was held that providing an opportunity of hearing to an accused in every criminal case before taking any action against them would defeat the ends of justice and the Bench held that “it is clear that the suspect/accused has no right of preaudience before registration of FIR.”
The Court remarked, “The petitioner could not point out any law by which a self proclaimed student leader can be permitted to enter inside a school unauthorizedly.”
Consequently, the Bench held that “the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not heard before the registration of offence.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Abhishek Pandey v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
