JUDGMENT

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. - The matter has been posted before the Full Bench for having an effective pronouncement on the following question formulated by the learned Single Judge (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) :

Whether in a writ petition preferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation against the accused persons alleged to have committed the cognizable offence(s), the said accused persons are necessary or proper party and they are required to be noticed and heard before issuing any such writ/direction, if any ?

2. The writ petition was preferred for seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to register First Information Report (FIR) and arrest Mithilesh Kumar and his other family members for committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Daughter of the petitioner namely; Priyanka Kumari (since deceased) was married with Mithilesh Kumar on 30-11-2014. The couple were blessed with a male child on 7-9-2015. On account of alleged ill treatment and demand of dowry Priyanka Kumari was found dead by hanging on 28-10-2016. The petitioner made an application to the concerned Station House Officer on 21-11-2016 for registering FIR against his daughter's husband Mithilesh Prajapati, mother-in-law Shakuntala Devi, brother-in-law Devesh Kumar & Omprakash. Since no action was taken by the police the writ petition was filed.

4. The learned Single Judge noticed the judgments relied by the State's counsel rendered by the Supreme Court in Aleque Padamsee and Others v Union of India and Others, (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakiri Vasu v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 as also the decision of the Division Bench {Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ & Parth Prateem Sahu, J.} of this Court rendered in Arun Singh Thakur v State of Chhattisgarh and Others (WA No.651 of 2018 (decided on 14-2-2019)) , wherein the order passed by the learned Single Judge (Goutam Bhaduri, J.) in Amit Singh Thakur v State of Chhattisgarh and Others (WPCR No.462 of 2018 (decided on 13-8-2018)) after referring the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 for registering FIR and completing the investigation at the earliest, has been set aside on the ground that the order was passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the effected party.

5. The learned Single Judge also referred three other judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another, (1963) AIR SC 786 , Prabodh Verma and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1984) 4 SCC 251 and Sadhu Bhagwandas Durlabhram and Others v Udaykumar H. Dave and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 599 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the High Court should not hear & dispose of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without hearing the persons who would be vitally effected by its judgment.

6. While referring the question of general importance for having an effective pronouncement by a larger Bench the learned Single Judge seems to be guided by the observations made by the Supreme Court in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia (supra), Prabodh Verma (supra) & Sadhu Bhagwandas Durlabhram (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in Arun Singh Thakur (supra). In these matters, the Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court have held that the High Court should not hear & dispose of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without hearing the persons who would be vitally effected by its judgment, however, the issue at the stage of registration of FIR is somewhat different than an issue where the person against whom the Court is approached would be adversely effected as any of his vested or statutory rights would be taken away or jeopardised. The prospective accused is not entitled to be heard at the stage of investigati