The accused has no right to a hearing before the registration of an FIR, and anyone can initiate criminal proceedings unless explicitly barred by law.

ORDER :

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 19.01.2021 passed by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, M.P. by which Registrar, Cooperative Societies has directed for initiation of criminal proceedings against petitioner.

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chattarpur by its letter dated 03.12.2019 had directed the Chief Executive Officer, Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Chattarpur to initiate proceedings under the service rules as well as for registration of criminal case. It was further directed to lodge a dispute under Section 64 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act as well as for attachment of property of petitioner under Section 68 of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act.

3. It is the case of petitioner that aforesaid order was challenged by petitioner by filing W.P. No.27915/2019 and the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 19.12.2019 with liberty to approach the Registrar by filing an appeal. It was further directed that in case if any application for grant of stay is filed, then the same shall also be entertained by Registrar. It was further observed that in case if the appeal is filed within a period of 10 days from the date of order, till then no action shall be taken against him. Accordingly, petitioner preferred an appeal on 28.12.2019 and the Registrar decided the stay application after two months and rejected the same on the ground of non-maintainability of appeal. Again petitioner filed W.P. No.6805/2020 which was disposed of by order dated 19.03.2020 and order dated 19.12.2019 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for fresh adjudication of application on merits, till then they were restrained from taking coercive action against petitioner. Now by order dated 19.01.2021 the Registrar has allowed the appeal on the ground of competency and has directed the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chattarpur to issue instructions to the society to take departmental action as well as to take criminal action against petitioner.

4. Challenging the order dated 19.01.2021, it is submitted by Shri Tripathi that petitioner is aggrieved by direction to initiate criminal action against him. It is submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner before issuing such a direction. It is further submitted that if any FIR is lodged on the instructions of the Deputy Registrar, then it would be by an incompetent authority. Furthermore, Section 64 of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act provides for an efficacious mode of recovery of losses sustained by society and under these circumstances, registration of FIR is not warranted.

5. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that anybody can put the criminal agency in motion and unless and until it is specifically provided under the Act that FIR shall be lodged by an officer not below a particular rank, the locus of complainant cannot be looked into.

6. Heard learned counsel for parties.

Whether the suspect has a right of pre-audience

7. The Supreme Court in the case of Romila Thapar and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2018) 10 SCC 753 has held as under:

“24. Turning to the first point, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is no more res integra. In Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 526, in para 64, this Court restated that it is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency. Further, the accused persons cannot choose as to which investigating agency must investigate the offence committed by them. Para 64 of this decision reads thus : (SCC p. 100)

“64. … It is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an investigating agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which investigating agency must investigate the alleged offence com