IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law does not provide for a suspect to have a pre-registration hearing before the registration of an FIR, and the court's decision was based on this legal principle.

ORDER :

1. The applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 13.06.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Special District & Sessions Court, FTSC (POCSO), Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) in Criminal POCSO Case No. 1628/2023 by which the learned Special Judge has directed for issuance of notice to the respondents/proposed accused as per provisions of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. for offence enumerated in Section 193 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 471 of I.P.C. enquiry is required to be made, therefore, notice to the respondents/proposed accused is necessary and directed them to submit reply to the complaint made by the applicant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant filed a complaint under Sections 167, 192, 193, 197, 203, 468, 469, 471, 499, 500, 120(B) of IPC and Sections 21, 22 & 23 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act”) before the learned Fourth FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Durg on 05.06.2023 against respondent Nos. 2 to 9 mainly contending that on written complaints dated 14.08.2016 & 16.08.2016 lodged by respondent No. 1 who is Principal of D.P.S. School, offence under Sections 354, 354 (K) & Section 7 & 8 of POCSO Act has been registered against the present applicant bearing Crime No. 223/2016. The applicant was arrested on 17.08.2016. It has been further contended that the learned Special Judge after appreciating the evidence, material placed on record, has acquitted the accused. The learned trial Court while appreciating the material on record, has recorded its finding that FIR and proceedings drawn against the present applicant are doubtful and without default of the applicant, he had to remain in jail for 379 days, thus, the applicant is a sufferer of conspiracy committed by the respondents, therefore, he has filed the complaint for prosecution against all the respondents including respondent No. 9 who is a public servant. The applicant has already moved an application for permission to prosecute respondent No. 7 and as soon as he receives the sanction, he will produce copy of the same before the Court.

3. It has also been stated that the conduct of the respondents falls within the ambit of offence under Sections 167, 192, 193, 197, 203, 468, 469, 471, 499 & 500 & 120B of the IPC read with Section 21, 22, 23 of the POCSO Act, 2011. The complaint was filed on 05.06.2023 and the learned trial Court has fixed the case on 19.05.2023 for consideration on the complaint which was adjourned to 13.06.2023, on 13.06.2023, the learned trial Court has passed the impugned order directing the respondents to submit reply to the complaint and fixed the case on 27.07.2023. This order is being assailed by the applicant by filing the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order.

4. This Court has issued notice to respondents No. 2 to 9 vide order 24.08.2023 and the matter was listed on 13.02.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in granting opportunity of hearing to the accused to file reply to the complaint as per the Cr.P.C., there is no provision to give any opportunity to the accused before registration of offence. Thus, the learned trial Court has transgressed its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 13.06.2023 which is against the law laid down by Hon’ble the Full Bench of this Court in case of Dhananjay Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others, [WPCR No. 121 of 2017 (decided on 31.01.2020)] wherein Hon’ble the Full Bench has held that prospective accused has no right of hearing before registration of FIR and investigation by the police officer or before the court including the writ court. Therefore, in a writ petition seeking direction for registration of FIR and investigation into a cognizable offence, the prospective accused has no right of hearing and thus, he would submit that the impugned order be kindly q